NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 65469-65570 [2015-25724]

Download as PDF Vol. 80 Monday, No. 206 October 26, 2015 Part III Environmental Protection Agency asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Final Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0291; FRL–9933–13–OAR] RIN 2060–AP69 NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All major sources in these categories must meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury (Hg), non-mercury (non-Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only); health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and work practice standards, where applicable. The final rule, which has been informed by input from industry (including small businesses), environmental groups, and other stakeholders, protects air quality and promotes public health by reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This action is effective on December 28, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 28, 2015. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 2825; Fax number: (919) 541–5450; Email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. This preamble includes several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data inventories and risk modeling. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: ACI activated carbon injection AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model APCD air pollution control device ASOS Automated Surface Observing Systems ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BIA Brick Industry Association BLD bag leak detection BSCP Brick and Structural Clay Products CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CASRN Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cl2 chlorine CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system CRA Congressional Review Act DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter DLA dry limestone adsorber DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter DOD Department of Defense ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool °F degrees Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 FF fabric filter FQPA Food Quality Protection Act FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis FTIR Fourier transform infrared gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot HAP hazardous air pollutant HBEL health-based emission limit HCl hydrogen chloride HEM–3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1) HF hydrogen fluoride Hg mercury HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer ICR information collection request IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis IRIS Integrated Risk Information System lb/hr pounds per hour lb/ton pounds per ton LML lowest measured level LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level LOEL lowest observed effects level MACT maximum achievable control technology mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per year MRL Minimal Risk Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAS National Academy of Sciences NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/kg nanograms per kilogram NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health No. number NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAEL no observed adverse effect level Non-Hg non-mercury NOX nitrogen oxides NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act NWS National Weather Service O2 oxygen OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring OMB Office of Management and Budget %R percent recovery PM particulate matter PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ppm parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review SBE Standard Brick Equivalent SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations SO2 sulfur dioxide SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction TEQ 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalents TOSHI target-organ-specific hazard index tph tons per hour tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network mg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL Upper Prediction Limit VE visible emissions yr year asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Background Information Documents. On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (79 FR 75622). In this action, we are finalizing the rules. Documents summarizing the public comments on the proposal and presenting the EPA responses to those comments are available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D. Judicial Review II. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule? B. What actions preceded this final rule? C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories? III. Summary of the Final Rule A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP Manufacturing? B. What are the final rule requirements for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing? C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? E. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51? IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP? B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP? C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since proposal? VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses A. Health-Based Standards B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts? B. What are the secondary impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the benefits? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and subcategory listed under section 112(c). We issued the NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are issuing standards for BSCP manufacturing facilities and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities located at major sources. 2. Summary of the Major Provisions a. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for non-Hg HAP metals (or PM surrogate) and Hg, and a health-based emission limit (HBEL) for acid gases (hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65471 chloride (HCl) and chlorine (Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periodic kilns, dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns, and periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns. To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5-year performance testing for the regulated pollutants, parameter monitoring, and daily visible emissions (VE) checks. Owners/ operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with a fabric filter (FF) (e.g., dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF)) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detection (BLD) system or daily VE checks. b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for Hg, PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals), and dioxins/furans and HBEL for acid gases (HF and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers, MACT emission limits for Hg and PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. The EPA is also finalizing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and periods of startup and shutdown. To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5-year performance testing for the regulated pollutants, parameter monitoring, and daily VE checks. Owners/operators whose affected sources are equipped with an FF (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system or daily VE checks. 3. Costs and Benefits Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of this action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP), while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of this action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). See section VI of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. See section VII.B of this preamble for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART JJJJJ (Millions of 2011 dollars) Requirement Capital cost Emission controls .................................................................... Emissions testing .................................................................... Monitoring ............................................................................... Annual cost $62.3 2.26 — $23.7 0.552 0.352 Net benefit (7 percent discount). a $48 to 150. a Net benefit is the annual cost subtracted from the total monetized benefits (at a 7-percent discount rate). For more information, see section 7 of ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKKK (Millions of 2011 dollars) Requirement Capital cost Emission controls ......................................................................................................................................... Emissions testing ......................................................................................................................................... Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................... $0 0.267 — Annual cost $0 0.0655 0.0269 B. Does this action apply to me? The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this action are shown in Table 3 of this preamble: TABLE 3— NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION NAICS Code a b Category Industry ................................................................. 327120 327110 Federal government ............................................. State/local/tribal government ................................ a North .............................. .............................. Examples of potentially regulated entities Brick, structural clay, and extruded tile manufacturing facilities (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP); and ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Vitreous plumbing fixtures (sanitaryware) manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Not affected. Not affected. American Industry Classification System. manufacturing is not included in the source categories affected by this action. b Refractories asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 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, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 CFR 63.8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact either the delegated authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/ brickpg.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final rule and key technical documents at this same Web site. D. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 28, 2015. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.’’ This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC North Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations II. Background Information asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule? Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and subcategory listed under section 112(c). The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ control options. When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must not only consider the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must also take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts when doing so. B. What actions preceded this final rule? Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories by November 2000. The agency initially promulgated standards for these categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003). Those standards were challenged and subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standards for these categories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged that claim in a motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to act by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the Court found that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty to set standards by 2000 and held that Sierra Club’s claims could continue. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a consent decree to settle the litigation and establish proposal and promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for these categories. Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA began efforts to collect additional data to support new standards for the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an initial information collection effort in 2008 to update information on the inventory of affected units, hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 2008 EPA survey.’’ The EPA conducted a second information collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional emissions data and information on each facility’s startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) procedures, hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 2010 EPA survey.’’ The information collected as part of these surveys, and not claimed as CBI by respondents, is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 2013–0291. In addition, the dockets A– 99–30 and OAR–2002–0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP. The dockets A–2000–48, OAR–2002–0055, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0424 are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics. On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. See 79 FR 75622 (December 18, 2014). In response to a request from industry, the EPA extended the public comment period for the proposed action from February 17, 2015, to March 19, 2015. See 79 FR 78768 (December 31, 2014). In this action, the EPA is finalizing the rule. C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories? The final rule protects air quality and promotes the public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns. Emissions data collected during development of the final rule show that acid gases such as HF, HCl, and Cl2 represent the predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay ceramics kilns, accounting for 99.3 percent of the total HAP emissions. These kilns also emit lesser amounts of other HAP compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans, accounting for about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals emitted include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, Hg, nickel and selenium. Exposure to these HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be associated with a PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65473 variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous system and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI) and four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and nickel). III. Summary of the Final Rule The following sections summarize the final requirements for the BSCP Manufacturing source category and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category. Section IV of this preamble summarizes the major changes since proposal. A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP Manufacturing? 1. What source category is affected by the final rule? The final NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing applies to BSCP manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick, structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. 2. What are the affected sources? The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are (1) all tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility and (2) each periodic kiln. For purposes of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, tunnel kilns are defined to include any type of continuous kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns. Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, including (1) a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution control device (APCD), and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to the requirements of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. The following BSCP process units are not subject to the requirements of the final rule: (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products, (2) raw material processing and handling, and (3) dryers. Sources regulated under the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. 3. Does the final rule apply to me? This final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP applies to owners or operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any 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, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? Emission limitations. We are providing a choice of emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and Hg for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based on kiln size. In this final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater, and a small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of less than 10 tph. The options for total non-Hg HAP metals include total non-Hg HAP metals limits in units of pounds per hour (lb/ hr) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals in units of pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ dscf) at 17-percent oxygen (O2). The options for Hg include emission limits in units of lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) at 17-percent O2. We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2. The emission limits for acid gases, Hg, and non-Hg HAP metals are presented in Table 4 of this preamble. TABLE 4—ACID GASES, TOTAL NON-MERCURY HAP METALS AND MERCURY EMISSION LIMITS FOR BRICK AND STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS TUNNEL KILNS Subcategory Acid gases Total non-Hg HAP metals Hg Limits for existing sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) .......... — Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) .......... — All tunnel kilns ................................ 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent for collection of all tunnel kilns at facility. 0.036 lb/ton PM OR 0.0029 gr/ dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each existing tunnel kiln at facility. 0.37 lb/ton PM OR 0.0021 gr/dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 0.11 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each existing tunnel kiln at facility. — 4.1 E–05 lb/ton OR 5.5 E–04 lb/hr OR 7.7 μg/dscm at 17- percent O2 for each existing large tunnel kiln at facility 3.3 E–04 lb/ton OR 0.0019 lb/hr OR 91 μg/dscm at 17- percent O2 for each existing small tunnel kiln at facility — Limits for new sources — Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) .......... — All tunnel kilns ................................ asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) .......... 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent for collection of all tunnel kilns at facility. Work practice standards. We are issuing work practice standards for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice standards require developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 0.018 lb/ton PM OR 0.0014 gr/ dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at facility. 0.030 lb/ton PM OR 0.0021 gr/ dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 0.11 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at facility. — maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the periodic kilns. We are also issuing work practice standards for BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work practice standards require PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 2.8 E–05 lb/ton OR 3.4 E–04 lb/hr OR 6.2 μg/dscm at 17- percent O2 for each new large tunnel kiln at facility 3.3 E–04 lb/ton OR 0.0019 lb/hr OR 91 μg/dscm at 17- percent O2 for each new small tunnel kiln at facility — maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion; keeping records of each burner tune-up; and submitting a report for each tune-up conducted. As discussed in section III.C.1.a of this preamble, we are also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before renewing the facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg and PM (or non-Hg HAP metals). We are requiring that the owner or operator measure HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following methods: • EPA Method 26A, ‘‘Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary SourcesIsokinetic Method,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; • EPA Method 26, ‘‘Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid particulate (e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2 dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present; • EPA Method 320, ‘‘Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR’’ 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or • Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using Equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using Equation 3 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. As noted above, with respect to nonHg HAP metals, the owner or operator of a source can choose to meet either a non-Hg HAP metals limit or one of two alternative PM limits. If the owner or operator chooses to comply with one of the two PM emission limits rather than the non-Hg HAP metals limit, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 • EPA Method 5, ‘‘Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 3; • EPA Method 29, ‘‘Determination of Metals Emissions From Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 8; or • Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. If the owner or operator chooses to comply with the non-Hg HAP metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limits, the owner or operator must measure non-Hg HAP metals emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other approved alternative method to measure Hg emissions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator is required to install the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) equipment (as discussed in section III.A.6 of this preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator is required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed rate values during the PM/ non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems. For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65475 guidance and specifications for BLD systems. For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and determine the 3-hour block average pressure drop. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific pressure drop operating limit. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance test. The owner or operator also must maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or operator is required to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the 1week period that precedes the performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator must document the source and grade of the limestone used during the performance test. For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator is required to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific liquid pH and liquid flow rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values become the site-specific operating limit. For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg performance test and determine the 3hour block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. For a source with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator must use the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES capacity of the kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HClequivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. If the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent is greater than the HBEL, we are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HBEL. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator must determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HClequivalent that remains at or below the HBEL. The maximum process rate(s) becomes the operating limit(s) for process rate. 6. What are the continuous compliance requirements? The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the requirements in the operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including inspections, calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 3-hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL by maintaining VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is not flowing freely, according to load cell output, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift. The final rule provides the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate parametric compliance. For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, the owner or operator must not count any alarm time if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the owner or operator must count as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that if VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, the owner or operator must promptly conduct an opacity test, according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4. If opacity greater than 10 percent if observed, the owner or operator must initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test and opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent Method 9 test, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan, resume testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, on a daily basis, PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests, at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, the owner or operator must report these deviations by following the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8485. In lieu of conducting VE tests as described above, the owner or operator may conduct a PM test at least once every year following the initial performance test, according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, and the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8445(e) and (f)(1). For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate parametric compliance. For a DLA, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/ Cl2) HBEL by collecting and recording data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation. Any period in which the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA triggers corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must verify that the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA contain an adequate amount of limestone by performing a daily visual check of the limestone hopper and the storage bin. A daily visual check could include one of the following: (1) Conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not contain adequate limestone, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must record the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. The owner or operator also must use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/ Cl2 performance test and maintain records of the source and type of limestone. Finally, the owner or operator must monitor VE, as described in the previous paragraph. For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or above the minimum value established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test demonstrates compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/ Cl2) HBEL. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests demonstrates compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order. For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test. For sources with no APCD, we are requiring that the owner or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the PM/ non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid gases, then we are requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that enables the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL. 7. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 10 of subpart JJJJJ. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires the owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are also required for each semiannual reporting period. The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ. Specifically, we are requiring that the owner or operator keep the following records: • All reports and notifications submitted to comply with the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. • Records of performance tests. • Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance. • Continuous monitoring data as required in the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken. • Records of each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating limits). • Records of production rates. • Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures. • Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance. • Logs of the information required to document compliance with the periodic kiln work practice standard. • Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns. • Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards. • Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken. • Records of parameters and procedures followed for work practice standards. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65477 We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications: • Notifications required by the General Provisions. • Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source becomes subject to this subpart. • Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled. • Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test. • Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards). • Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of the most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard and a report of each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective action taken. • Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software for data collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this preamble for more information). B. What are the final rule requirements for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing? 1. What source category is affected by the final rule? This final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware (e.g., toilets and sinks). 2. What are the affected sources? The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are (1) each ceramic tile roller kiln; (2) each floor tile press dryer; (3) each ceramic tile spray dryer; (4) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying; (5) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; (6) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and (7) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth. The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the requirements E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations of the final rule: (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for refiring; (2) tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products; (3) glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns listed in items 1 and 2 above; (4) process units listed in items 1 through 3 above that are permitted to, but do not, process first-fire ware, until such time as they begin to process first-fire ware; (5) refire shuttle kilns that fire no more than four batches per year of first-fire ware; (6) glaze spray operations that on average use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year; (7) raw material processing and handling; (8) wall tile press dryers; and (9) sanitaryware ware dryers. Sources regulated under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 3. Does the final rule apply to me? This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP applies to owners or operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any 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, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? Emission limitations. We are issuing emission limits for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals (in units of lb/ ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations. We are issuing emission limits for Hg (lb/ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. We are issuing emission limits for dioxin/furan (nanograms of 2,3,7,8tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQ) per kilogram (ng/kg)) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns, floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid gases HF and HCl. The emission limits are presented in Table 5 of this preamble. TABLE 5—EMISSION LIMITS FOR CLAY CERAMICS SOURCES Acid gases (lb/hr HClequivalent) a Subcategory Hg (lb/ton) PM b (lb/ton) Dioxins/furans (ng/kg) c 1.3 E–04 ........................ ........................ 2.1 E–04 ........................ 1.6 E–04 2.6 E–04 ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.13 ........................ ........................ 0.37 ........................ 1.9 0.34 35 13 8.9 2.8 0.024 19 0.22 0.058 ........................ 3.3 ........................ ........................ ........................ 3.9 E–05 ........................ ........................ 2.1 E–04 ........................ 1.6 E–04 1.3 E–04 ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.037 ........................ ........................ 0.37 ........................ 0.61 0.095 3.9 3.2 2.3 1.3 0.024 0.071 0.22 0.058 ........................ 0.99 ........................ ........................ ........................ Limits for existing sources Floor tile roller kilns .......................................................................................... Floor tile press dryers ...................................................................................... Floor tile spray dryers ...................................................................................... Wall tile roller kilns ........................................................................................... Wall tile spray dryers ....................................................................................... Tile glaze lines ................................................................................................. First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns ................................................................... Sanitaryware manual glaze application ........................................................... Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application ............................................... Sanitaryware robot glaze application .............................................................. 140 ........................ ........................ 140 ........................ ........................ 140 ........................ ........................ ........................ Limits for new sources Floor tile roller kilns .......................................................................................... Floor tile press dryers ...................................................................................... Floor tile spray dryers ...................................................................................... Wall tile roller kilns ........................................................................................... Wall tile spray dryers ....................................................................................... Tile glaze lines ................................................................................................. First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns ................................................................... Sanitaryware manual glaze application ........................................................... Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application ............................................... Sanitaryware robot glaze application .............................................................. a b asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES c 140 ........................ ........................ 140 ........................ ........................ 140 ........................ ........................ ........................ Limit applies to collection of all kilns at facility. PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram. Work practice standards. We are issuing work practice standards in lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice standards require using natural gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each shuttle kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 with the maximum load (in tons) of throughput (greenware) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including logs to PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the shuttle kilns. As discussed in section III.C.1.b of this preamble, we are also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown. 5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before renewing the facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or operator must measure HF and HCl from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware firstfire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods: • EPA Method 26A, ‘‘Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary SourcesIsokinetic Method,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; • EPA Method 26, ‘‘Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid particulate (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present; • EPA Method 320, ‘‘Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR’’ 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or • Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using Equation 5 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL. We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods: • EPA Method 5, ‘‘Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 3; • EPA Method 29, ‘‘Determination of Metals Emissions From Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 8; or VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 • Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns. We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. We are also requiring that the owner or operator measure dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers, floor tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using EPA Method 23, ‘‘Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator is required to install the CPMS equipment (as discussed in section III.B.6 of this preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator is required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed rate values during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems. For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65479 or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems. For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH during the HF/HCl performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator is required to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific liquid pH and liquid flow rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the site-specific operating limits. For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests and determine the 3-hour block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. If different average activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln during the dioxin/ furan performance test. The highest 4hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site-specific operating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the operating temperatures of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3-hour block average temperature. The average of the three test runs establishes the sitespecific operating limit. For sources with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator must use the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of the E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. If the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the HBEL, we are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the HBEL. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator must determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL. The maximum process rate(s) becomes the operating limit(s) for process rate. We are also requiring that the owner or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln during the dioxin/furan performance test. The highest 4-hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site-specific operating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the operating temperatures of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3-hour block average temperature. The average of the three test runs establishes the site-specific operating limit. 6. What are the continuous compliance requirements? The final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation checks, and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 operator must calculate and record the 3-hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL by maintaining freeflowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the final rule provides the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate parametric compliance. For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and if corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that the owner or operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, ‘‘Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. During the VE observations, the source must be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 22 testing from daily to weekly for that source. If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator must resume EPA Method 22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate parametric compliance. For a wet scrubber on a tunnel or roller kiln, we are requiring that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl performance test demonstrates compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl performance tests demonstrates compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order. For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/ furan emission limits by continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests. If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and the operating temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and maintaining it at or below the highest 4-hour average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln, at or above the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the ceramic tile spray dryer, and at or below the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer. For a wet scrubber on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrates compliance with the PM emission limit. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrates compliance with the PM emission limit by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order. For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. For baffles on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place. For a source with no APCD, we are requiring that, to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit, the owner or operator monitor VE as described above. We are also requiring that, to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator continuously monitor the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and operating temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and maintain it at or below the highest 4-hour average stack temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln, at or above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the ceramic tile spray dryer, and at or below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer. In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid gases, then we are requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that enables the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL. 7. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 11 of subpart KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires the owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are also required for each semiannual reporting period. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. Specifically, we are requiring that the owner or operator must keep the following records: • All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. • Records of performance tests. • Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance. • Continuous monitoring data as required in this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken. • Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating limits). • Records of production rates. • Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures. • Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance. • Logs of the information required to document compliance with the shuttle kiln work practice standard. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65481 • Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards. • Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken. • Records of parameters and procedures followed for work practice standards. We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications: • Notifications required by the General Provisions. • Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source becomes subject to this subpart. • Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled. • Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test. • Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstration for the work practice standard). • Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective action taken. • Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating use of the alternative fuel. • Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software for data collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this preamble for more information). C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in sections IV.A.4 and IV.B.2 of this preamble, has established alternate standards for those periods. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES a. BSCP Manufacturing The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup kiln car push rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the startup kiln car push rate until the kiln exhaust is vented to the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble. The EPA is issuing similar work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-specific kiln temperature profile and the startup kiln car push rate of the product. For startup, the startup kiln car push rate may not be exceeded until the kiln reaches the product-specific kiln temperature profile. For shutdown, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln falls below the product-specific kiln temperature profile. When the kiln production rate is greater than the startup kiln car push rate, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 continuous compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble. b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the startup production rate of the product until the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln or dryer cools. No additional throughput may be introduced to the kiln, press dryer and spray dryer once the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. When the exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.B.6 of this preamble. The EPA is also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the startup production rate may not be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the product-specific temperature profile. For shutdown, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln or dryer cools. No additional throughput may be introduced to the kiln, press dryer and spray dryer once the kiln, press dryer or spray dryer falls below the product-specific temperature profile. When the kiln or dryer production rate is greater than the startup production rate, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 described in section III.B.6 of this preamble. 2. Periods of Malfunction Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the DC Circuit has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting section CAA 112 standards. Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’’’) See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an APCD with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the APCD was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As a result, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are effective on December 28, 2015. If the initial startup of the affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before December 28, 2015, then the compliance date is no later than December 28, 2015. If the initial startup of the affected source is after December 28, 2015, then the compliance date is immediately upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance date for existing affected sources is no later than December 26, 2018. The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 calendar days after the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.8395 for affected sources of BSCP manufacturing and 40 CFR 63.8545 for affected sources of clay ceramics manufacturing, according to the provisions in 40 CFR 60.7(a)(2). The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be conducted no later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous performance test. The date to submit performance test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance test. E. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? The EPA is requiring owners or operators of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65483 and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). As stated in the proposed preamble, the EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paperbased, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public. As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, the EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to everyone and will provide a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder could access. By making the records, data and reports addressed in this rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAArequired technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having reports readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time. We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAArequired technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency’s ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection. Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software ‘‘search’’ options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and review air emission report information electronically will assist air agencies to E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of emission inventories, air quality regulations, and enhancing the public’s access to this important information. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51? In this final rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following documents described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: • ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and Table 4 to subpart KKKKK. To correct an earlier, inadvertent error that exists in the CFR, we are also adding back in the IBR approval for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ. • ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK. • ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK. • ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK. • EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.8450(e)(1), (9), and (10) and 40 CFR 63.8600(e)(1), (9), and (10). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale The following sections summarize the significant changes made to the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, including the rationale for those changes, to respond to public comments and to correct technical inconsistencies or editorial errors in the proposal. A detailed discussion of these and other public comments, as well as other changes not discussed in this section, can be found in the responseto-comments documents, available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All changes to the final rules, including the significant changes discussed in this section and all other changes not discussed in this section, can also be found in the redline comparison of the proposed and final regulatory text, available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP? 1. Changes to the Data Set Following proposal, the EPA learned that two of the facilities in the inventory at proposal were closed and the kilns were demolished. In addition, the EPA learned that two of the synthetic area sources in the inventory at proposal were actually true area sources. These facilities were removed from the master inventory, and the test data from kilns at two of these facilities were also removed from the data set. The EPA learned that a new tunnel kiln had been constructed at a new facility, and that new facility was added to the inventory. The EPA also received additional HF, PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 HCl, and PM test data for three kilns, which was added into the data set. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (i.e., between 223 and 273 °F). Test runs with temperatures outside that range were removed from the data set. (See the memorandum ‘‘Test Data Used in BSCP Manufacturing Final Rule’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for more information on this analysis.) Several public commenters stated that the concentration limits for PM and Hg should not be corrected to 7-percent O2 because BSCP kilns operate with a higher O2 content; one commenter suggested that the EPA use data corrected to 17- percent O2 instead. The EPA evaluated this comment and agrees that 17-percent O2 is more representative of BSCP kiln operations. Specifically, the EPA evaluated the O2 content of the run-by-run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns and found that for the PM data set, the oxygen content ranged from 9.5 to 20.5 percent, with an average of 16.8 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run-by-run O2 values rounded to whole numbers. For the Hg data set, the oxygen content ranged from 13.1 to 19.5 percent, with an average of 17.2 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run-by-run O2 values rounded to whole numbers. The EPA agrees that correcting concentration data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7percent, as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns’ operating conditions and would not artificially inflate the values. Therefore, the EPA recalculated the oxygen-corrected PM and Hg test runs to be corrected to 17percent instead of 7-percent O2. 2. Changes to the MACT Floor Pool and Calculations At proposal, the MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals were based on kilns with FFbased APCD, as the EPA considered those to be the best performing sources in the industry. However, as noted in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA after proposal examined the PM test data in an effort to insure that the data were valid. We found a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. These out-of-range temperatures invalidated the test runs, and in some cases, invalidated entire PM tests, reducing the set of valid, available test data. Some of the PM test E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations data removed from the data set were for kilns controlled with a DIFF. As a result, the EPA no longer has data on all the kilns with a FF-based APCD in the industry, which undercuts one of the bases for EPA’s proposal to use the best performing FF-based kilns to set a MACT floor based on 12 percent of the kilns in the entire category. In addition, at proposal the EPA requested more data to further substantiate that kilns with FF-based APCD actually represented the best performing sources in terms of PM emissions. For example, there were some data in the record at the time of the proposal suggesting that in some cases, uncontrolled kilns actually had emissions below the PM emissions of some kilns with FF-based APCD, which is contrary to what we would expect. The EPA requested information to explain these anomalies. However, information was not received during the comment period sufficient to explain why some kilns without FF-based APCD emitted at levels as low as or lower than some kilns with FF-based APCD. For this reason, and because some of the emissions data on DIFF-controlled kilns had to be removed from the data pool as discussed above, the record does not support the conclusion that we have PM emissions data on all the best performing kilns in the industry. Given that, we are instead basing the PM MACT floor on 12 percent of the kilns for which we have emissions data. Therefore, the final MACT floor pools for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals are not based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the 27 best performing sources). Instead, the final MACT floor limits are based on the top 12 percent of the sources for which we have emissions data available in each of the kiln size subcategories, consistent with the approach described for the proposed alternate non-Hg HAP metals standards in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75649). In addition, in response to public comments received on the proposed rule, and consistent with the proposed alternate approach in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA has decided to exercise its discretion to subcategorize for emissions of PM based on kiln size in the final rule. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Section IV.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75633) described the EPA’s assessment of tunnel kiln size subcategories. When the EPA recalculated the MACT floor pools for VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals as described in the previous paragraph, the EPA evaluated subcategorizing by kiln size and determined it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to subcategorize in this case. This subcategorization provides additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns, many of which are operated by small businesses. Therefore, the final MACT floor limits for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals are based on the best performing 12 percent of the sources in each of the kiln size subcategories with valid test data (i.e., 12 percent of the data available). The EPA also proposed two alternative equivalent limits, calculated based on the same best performing sources ranked by lb/ton, then using those units’ concentration or lb/hr data to calculate the floor. During the public comment period, the EPA received comments that each alternative limit should be calculated according to a separate ranking based on the specific unit of measure. Upon further analysis of the data sets for each unit of measure, the EPA has found that there are some differences in the top ranked sources between each unit of measure data set and thus finds the alternative limits expressed on their own unit of measure data set ranking to be the most indicative of that data set’s MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA re-ranked the data for each unit of measurement in each kiln size subcategory separately. The final alternative equivalent limits are based on the top 12 percent of the data available in each subcategory according to these revised rankings. In other words, the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data, and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for that unit of measurement. In addition, the final lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals alternative limit is based on a ranking of the non-Hg HAP metals data rather than the use of conversion factors applied to the PM lb/ton floor limit, as was done at proposal. 3. Variability Calculation Based on Hg Raw Material Data At proposal, the EPA developed Hg MACT floors based on the best performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., the lowest emitting sources of Hg emissions from test data). However, commenters identified that the Hg comes from the raw materials used and the Hg content can vary by location, even within the same quarry. The EPA did not account for this inherent variability at proposal. The Brick Industry Association (BIA) coordinated PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65485 with several BSCP facilities to test the Hg content of the raw materials used and provided the data to the EPA. The EPA mapped the facilities and quarry locations provided by BIA to identify two distinct quarry locations, an Oklahoma deposit and an Ohio deposit, for use in the development of a Hg raw material variability factor. The data from these two deposit locations were incorporated into the upper prediction limit (UPL) equation. Please see ‘‘Mercury Content of Oklahoma and Ohio Shale Deposits Supplying the Brick Industry’’ and ‘‘Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for more information about the data and variability factor. 4. Startup and Shutdown Procedures The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented through an APCD (if applicable) and below which no product could be introduced to the kiln (400 °F for startup and 300 °F for shutdown). Industry commenters indicated that the exhaust of some kilns never reaches the specific temperatures proposed by the EPA, and that some product must be introduced to the kiln during startup to heat the kiln enough for full production. The EPA evaluated these comments and agrees that the proposed standards do not actually represent the work practices representative of the best performing kilns. The intent of the proposed standards was to represent work practices of the best performing kilns to minimize emissions by limiting the amount of brick being fired before the kiln reaches full production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the APCD, if applicable. As noted at proposal, the standards were based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey. The EPA received additional information following proposal on the procedures used during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns that are more representative of the best performing kilns. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles as the proposed standards but are representative of how kilns actually perform during startup. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln temperature profile. B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP? 1. Changes to the Data Set After proposal, a public commenter identified a transcription error in the production rate for the PM and Hg stack tests for one floor tile roller kiln. The production rate was corrected, and the PM and Hg lb/ton values were recalculated. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248 ± 25 °F (i.e., between 223 and 273 °F). Test runs with temperatures outside that range were removed from the data set. (See the memorandum ‘‘Test Data Used in Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Final Rule’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0290 for more information on this analysis.) During the public comment period, the sanitaryware manufacturing company that provided all of the data used for the sanitaryware tunnel kiln MACT floors clarified that the production rates they provided in their CAA section 114 survey response are in terms of ‘‘greenware fired’’ into the kiln rather than ‘‘fired product’’ coming out of the kiln (as requested in the section 114 survey). Therefore, to be consistent with the data, the final emission limits for PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and Hg from sanitaryware tunnel kilns are in terms of lb/ton of greenware fired rather than lb/ton of product fired (as proposed). Finally, in response to comments requesting a change in the format of the emission limits for dioxins/furans, the EPA recalculated the emissions for each test run in units of ng/kg of throughput (specifically, ‘‘fired product’’ for ceramic tile roller kilns, ‘‘greenware fired’’ for sanitaryware tunnel kilns, and ‘‘throughput processed’’ for ceramic tile press dryers and spray dryers). The MACT floors were then recalculated using those data, and the final emission limits for dioxins/furans for clay ceramics sources are in units of ng/kg rather than concentration as proposed. 2. Startup and Shutdown Procedures The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented through an APCD (if applicable) and below which no product could be introduced to the kiln or dryer (400 °F for startup and 300 °F for shutdown). One industry commenter indicated that the exhaust of some dryers never reach the specific temperatures proposed by the EPA. The EPA evaluated the comment and agrees that the proposed standards are not actually representative of the best performing dryers. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles as the proposed standards but more accurately reflect the best performing sources. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln or dryer does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln or dryer can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln or dryer, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln or dryer. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional throughput can be introduced once the kiln or dryer exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile. C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since proposal? A number of changes have been made to the monitoring requirements for the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in response to comments on the proposed rule. These changes are summarized in Table 6 of this preamble. Further details about the basis for these changes are provided in the response-tocomments documents for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, available in Docket Nos. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0290 (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing) and EPA–HQ–OAR– 2013–0291 (BSCP Manufacturing). TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SINCE PROPOSAL Monitoring requirements Sources asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Proposal BSCP or clay ceramics kilns equipped with a wet scrubber. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Promulgation To demonstrate compliance with acid gas standard: • Monitor scrubber liquid pH ........................... • Monitor scrubber chemical feed rate (if applicable). • Maintain at or above average pH/feed rate during acid gas test. To demonstrate compliance with acid gas standard: • Monitor scrubber liquid pH • Maintain at or above highest average ph during acid gas test PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65487 TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SINCE PROPOSAL—Continued Monitoring requirements Sources Proposal To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP metals standard: • Monitor scrubber pressure drop. .................. • Maintain at or above average pressure drop during PM/non-Hg HAP metals test.. BSCP kilns with no add-on control .................... Clay ceramics kilns with no add-on control, or intending to comply with dioxin/furan standard without an ACI system. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses The EPA received a total of 52 public comment letters on the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for the complete public comments.) The EPA received a total of seven public comment letters on the proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0290 for the complete public comments.) The following sections summarize the major public comments received on the proposal and present the EPA’s responses to those comments. A. Health-Based Standards Comment: Two commenters disagreed with setting standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl2 from new and existing BSCP and clay ceramics sources. One commenter questioned whether the EPA has the authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards for these acid gases. The commenter asserted that it would be arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to set risk-based standards for these pollutants when the EPA previously decided not to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2 in air toxics rulemakings for industrial boilers and power plants. For power plants, the EPA stated that the agency ‘‘does not have sufficient information to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) health-based emission standards and we did not receive such data during the comment VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Promulgation To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP metals and acid gas standards: • Monitor scrubber liquid flow rate. • Maintain at or above highest average flow rate during PM/non-Hg HAP metals and acid gas tests. To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP metals and acid gas standards: • Monitor scrubber liquid flow rate. ................. • Maintain at or above average flow rate during PM/non-Hg HAP metals and acid gas tests.. To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP metals standard: • Perform daily, 15-minute VE observations. • If VE are observed, initiate and complete corrective actions.. To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/ furans standard: • Monitor kiln operating temperature. ............. • Maintain at or above average operating temperature during dioxin/furan test.. period.’’1 The commenter noted that the EPA reached a similar conclusion with respect to industrial boilers, declining to set risk-based standards because of a lack of information on emissions.2 The commenter asserted that the health and scientific data regarding emissions of acid gases from BSCP and clay ceramics plants similarly fail to provide justification for setting HBEL for these pollutants. The commenter asserted the EPA must instead set MACT standards. Similarly, the second commenter expressed concern over using CAA section 112(d)(4) and health-based risk assessment for setting the HCl, HF and Cl2 standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. The commenter noted that this would be the first time the EPA used the health-based risk assessment approach under CAA section 112(d)(4) to set emission standards for HF and Cl2; although the EPA has used this approach in the past to establish health-based standards for other source categories, it was restricted to ‘‘HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility’’ (79 FR 75639). The commenter supported focusing on pollutants that pose the greatest risks but expressed concern that the EPA has 1 ‘‘Responses to Public Comments on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2009–0234–20126. 2 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 75 FR 32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP metals standard: • Perform daily, 15-minute VE observations • If VE are observed, promptly conduct an opacity test • If opacity greater than 10% are observed, initiate and complete corrective actions To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/ furans standard: • Monitor kiln stack temperature • Maintain at or below highest stack temperature during dioxin/furan test not adequately established that the approaches used are appropriate. The commenter asserted that the EPA’s approach represented a far-reaching and significant change in the manner in which MACT standards are established under CAA section 112(d) and that it was inappropriate for the EPA to propose such changes in a rulemaking for individual source categories instead of discussing the approach with all affected parties. The commenter noted that Congress established section 112 of the CAA to rely on a technology-based approach to avoid the gridlock of the unsuccessful risk-based methods used before the adoption of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Accordingly, while the CAA includes language under section 112(d)(4) allowing the use of risk in the establishment of MACT, it should be used only under limited and very specific circumstances, and the commenter stated that the EPA’s proposal did not adequately make the case for the use of CAA section 112(d)(4). Conversely, two other commenters stated that the EPA has clear legal authority to set HBEL and ample justification to do so for the BSCP source category. The commenters stated that under the terms of this provision, the EPA may set an emission standard at a level higher than would be required by CAA section 112(d)(4), provided that: (1) The pollutant(s) being regulated is a threshold pollutant and (2) the standard provides an ample margin of safety. The E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES commenters stated that both of these criteria are met in this case. The commenters asserted that the proposed standard is consistent with Congress’s expectations regarding the implementation of CAA section 112(d)(4). According to the Senate report accompanying the legislation, ‘‘For some pollutants a MACT emission limitation may be far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the environment’’ and in such situations, ‘‘[t]o avoid expenditures by regulated entities which secure no public health or environmental benefit, the Administrator is given discretionary authority to consider the evidence for a health threshold higher than MACT at the time the standard is under review.’’ 3 The commenters stated that for this rulemaking, MACT would result in emission standards that are far more stringent than are needed to protect health and the environment and asserted that Congress enacted CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow emission standards to be tailored to protect public health without imposing unreasonable and unnecessary standards on affected sources. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we do not have the authority to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in this rulemaking. The EPA also disagrees that the decision to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards is inconsistent with our decisions on other rulemakings. The commenters’ more detailed arguments and the EPA’s responses are provided in the remainder of this section. 1. Health Thresholds Comment: One commenter stated that a pollutant is not a threshold pollutant under CAA section 112(d)(4) unless the EPA establishes that it cannot cause cancer at any level of exposure. The commenter asserted that HCl, HF, and Cl2 do not have already-established safe health thresholds and the EPA’s proposed standards would not provide ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ Conversely, two commenters agreed with the EPA that the available health data indicate that HCl, HF, and Cl2 are all threshold pollutants. The commenters stated that the data show that each of these pollutants has a discernible exposure threshold below which adverse human health effects are not expected to occur; in addition, none of the available data suggest that these pollutants reasonably should be expected to act as a carcinogen or 3 S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action that would result in non-threshold effects. Response: The EPA disagrees with the first commenter regarding HCl, HF and Cl2 not having thresholds accepted by the scientific community, and we acknowledge the support of the other two commenters. The EPA’s conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals across agencies, i.e., the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). The toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. In addition, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support the EPA’s risk assessments in the residual risk and technology review (RTR) program. Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been classified as a carcinogen or as ‘‘suggestive of the potential to be carcinogenic,’’ individually or in combination, by existing authoritative bodies, including EPA, CalEPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the European Community. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and Cl2 are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for these pollutants. The existing health effects evidence on HCl, HF and Cl2 that provide support for this determination is described below. Potential health effects of HCl: • There are limited studies on the carcinogenic potential of HCl in humans. The occupational data are limited to a couple of studies (Steenland et al., 1988, Beaumont et al., 1986)4,5 4 Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T. Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766–776. 5 Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin. 1987. Lung PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 where the subjects were exposed to a mixture of acid gases (mainly sulfuric acid)and other chemicals (including metals) that may have contained HCl. These studies failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to other substances shown to have carcinogenic activity and are therefore not appropriate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of HCl. Another occupational study failed to show evidence of association between exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing plant employees showing that there is no evidence that HCl is a human carcinogen.6 • Consistent with the human data, chronic inhalation studies in animals have reported no carcinogenic responses after chronic exposure to HCl (Albert et al., 1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).7,8 • Hydrogen chloride has not been demonstrated to be genotoxic. The genotoxicity database consists of two studies showing false positive results potentially associated with low pH in the test system (Morita et al., 1992; Cifone et al., 1987).9,10 • Chronic exposure to HCl at concentrations below the current IRIS reference concentration (RfC) are not expected to cause adverse effects. Potential health effects of HF: • There are a limited number of studies investigating the carcinogenic potential of HF. These studies are unreliable on the issue of possible carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluorides, in general, because of many confounding factors (e.g., exposure to multiple unknown chemicals and smoking habits not accounted for) and because no breakdown was done by type of fluoride exposure.11 cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911–921. 6 Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case-control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958–61. 7 Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68(4): 597–603. 8 Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401–406. 9 Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992. Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297–305. 10 Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987. Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39–46. 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine. 2003. Available at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations • Chronic exposure at or below the current CalEPA reference exposure level (REL) is not expected to cause adverse effects. Potential health effects of Cl2: • The existing studies of workers in the chemical industry have not found any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic. • Chronic bioassays in rodents and long-term studies in non-human primates have shown no evidence for carcinogenicity in respiratory tract as target tissue or other tissues. • Chronic exposure to Cl2 at concentrations below the current ATSDR minimal risk level (MRL) are not expected to cause adverse effects. We disagree with the comment that the EPA’s proposed HBEL does not provide an ample margin of safety, for the following reasons. First, the limit is based on the facility in the source category with the highest potential exposure to nearby residents. The HBEL at this single facility reflects a ratio of exposure concentration over the reference value of up to 1 (at an exposure concentration below the RfC is considered to be health protective). As such, exposures will not exceed the established health threshold at this facility. In addition, the exposure estimate used to set the limit is very health protective in that it assumes constant exposure for 70 years. Actual exposures from emissions from this facility are expected to be lower (i.e., because persons will spend time away from home). This conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4). Second, the ratios at the other facilities (not the highest facility noted above) from this source category are lower and in most cases significantly lower, with approximately 90 percent of these facilities having a ratio of 0.5 or less, which provides a further increased margin of safety beyond the ample margin of safety established at the facility with the highest potential exposure. Comment: One commenter stated that, according to the EPA, an RfC is merely ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude)’’ of an exposure that is ‘‘likely to be’’ without health risks.12 By definition, this ‘‘estimate’’ is not by itself a ‘‘safe threshold’’ of exposure that ‘‘presents no risk’’ of adverse health effects. The commenter stated the EPA cannot lawfully use a pollutant’s RfC as a default ‘‘safe threshold’’ under CAA 12 U.S. EPA, Glossary, https://www.epa.gov/risk_ assessment/glossary.htm (last updated Apr. 28, 2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 section 112(d)(4) because an RfC does not pose ‘‘no’’ health risks, as the commenter asserted the CAA requires. The commenter stated that the EPA is authorized to set risk-based standards only where it has direct evidence of the level at which there are no adverse effects observed and that proceeding with HBEL without a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is unlawful. Another commenter stated the use of health-based standards should only be considered for HAP that have been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA and are contained in the IRIS database with a high level of confidence in the RfC. With respect to HCl, the IRIS confidence levels are ‘‘Low’’ for the inhalation RfC. In ‘‘Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure,’’ IRIS states, ‘‘This substance/agent has not undergone a complete evaluation and determination under the EPA’s IRIS program for evidence of human carcinogenic potential.’’ 13 In the proposal, the EPA acknowledged that ‘‘[t]he EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity’’ and ‘‘[l]ittle research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75639). The commenter also stated that IARC concluded that ‘‘[t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in humans of hydrochloric acid,’’ that ‘‘[t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in experimental animals of hydrochloric acid,’’ and that HCl ‘‘is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.’’ 14 The commenter stated that the EPA did not identify any evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic and noted that the only study the EPA referenced is ‘‘one occupational study’’ that ‘‘found no evidence of carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75639). Because the EPA did not provide a citation for the study or otherwise identify it or discuss it, the public are unable to adequately comment on it. Response: The EPA’s risk assessments are supported by the best available toxicity assessments from authoritative bodies including the EPA’s IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The SAB has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA’s risk assessments in the RTR program. These authoritative bodies derive health protective reference values at or below which no adverse effects are expected to occur. As mentioned previously in this section, the toxicity assessments, which include 13 U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information System—Hydrogen chloride. https://www.epa.gov/ iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal. 14 IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), available at https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/ Monographs/vol54/mono54-8.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65489 noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. The commenter stated that there is not a NOAEL and that based on that, the EPA cannot set a HBEL for HCl. The EPA toxicity assessments consider the entire toxicity database for specific chemicals and are conducted following well-established EPA guidance on how to assess potential hazard of a chemical and conduct dose response assessments. These assessments include the derivation of an RfC, which is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages) over a lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived from a NOAEL, lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to reflect the limitations of the data used. In particular for HCl, the point of departure for the RfC (15 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3)) was selected from chronic inhalation studies in rodents and was adjusted to reflect a lifetime of exposure (2.7 mg/m 3) and extrapolated to a human equivalent concentration (6.1 mg/m 3) based on differences in the effects of a gas in the respiratory system between rats and humans. Uncertainty factors (total of 300, yielding an RfC of 0.02 mg/m 3) were applied to account for interspecies differences, intraspecies extrapolation and extrapolation from a LOAEL to NOAEL. It is important to note that in the IRIS assessment for HCl it is stated that a reasonable estimate of the NOAEL in humans is in the range of 0.3–3 mg/m 3. This estimate resulted from an expert review workshop and is based on examination of the HCl literature, a comparison with sulfuric acid toxicity, and the judgment of those in attendance at the review workshop. In addition, this value is generally consistent with identified NOAELs in subchronic animal studies (OECD, 2002). Based on this information, we are confident that the IRIS HCl RfC represents a conservative health protective benchmark below which adverse health effects are not expected to occur. As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific evidence on HCl (discussed previously in this section) and concluded that there is no evidence that HCl is a carcinogen and that this information is sufficient for this regulatory determination. The 2002 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations OECD assessment of HCl drew similar conclusions: For genetic toxicity, a negative result has been shown in the Ames test. A positive result in a chromosome aberration test using Hamster ovary cells is considered to be an artifact due to the low pH. For carcinogenicity, no pre-neoplastic or neoplastic nasal lesions were observed in a 128-week inhalation study with SD male rats at 10 ppm hydrogen chloride gas. No evidence of treatment related carcinogenicity was observed in other animal studies performed by inhalation, oral or dermal administration. In humans, no association between hydrogen chloride exposure and tumor incidence was observed.15 Additionally, the EPA conducted a screening level literature review in 2003 and did not identify any critical studies that would change the conclusions in the 1995 HCl IRIS assessment. Based on the information available, the EPA concludes that this information is sufficient to support setting an HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl. Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA proposed to base the HCl emission standards on the HCl RfC and argued it is unlawful to do so where the EPA has ‘‘low confidence’’ in the RfC. The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to claim there is an established, safe health threshold based on a reference value in which the EPA has low confidence. According to the commenter, having low confidence in the RfC is the same as admitting that the EPA has ‘‘low confidence’’ in the proposed emission standards. The fact that the EPA was unable to determine a no-effect level in a robust and reliable scientific study demonstrates concern that chronic exposure to even very low levels of HCl can compromise health, especially in sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, the EPA cannot state that HCl presents no risk of adverse health effects. The commenter stated that the EPA used a non-cancer health threshold for HCl based on a chronic inhalation study on rats.16 The EPA has determined the RfC to be 0.02 mg/m3 (0.0134 part per million (ppm)), based on rat studies by Albert, et al., demonstrating hyperplasia of the nasal mucosa (the protective cell lining of the nasal tract and cavities), larynx, and trachea.17 The commenter asserted that because these rat studies failed to identify a NOAEL, the EPA based the RfC on a LOAEL (i.e., the lowest dose in the study that induced a measurable adverse health effect in treated animals). The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) does not permit risk-based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined; at a minimum, Congress required that a threshold be based on the ‘‘ ‘no observable [adverse] effects level’ (NOAEL) below which human exposure is presumably ‘safe.’ ’’ 18 The EPA has similarly recognized that ‘‘the legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health-based emission limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no observable effects occur’’ (79 FR 75642). The commenter stated that, if there is no established non-zero threshold level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious health effects, then the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant at a given level presents no harm. The commenter stated that without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist, and the EPA does not have the authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) to set an HBEL for HCl. Response: The EPA’s chemicalspecific toxicity assessments are derived using the EPA’s risk assessment guidelines and approaches that are well established and vetted through the scientific community, and follow rigorous peer review processes.19 The RTR program gives preference to EPA values (i.e., RfCs for noncancer assessments) for use in risk assessments and uses other values, as appropriate, when those values are derived with methods and peer review processes consistent with those followed by the EPA. The approach for selecting appropriate toxicity values for use in the RTR Program has been endorsed by the SAB.20 The EPA’s RfCs are assigned confidence levels of high, medium and low based on the completeness of the supporting database. High confidence RfCs are considered less likely to change substantially with the collection of Rep. No. 101–228, at 171, 176. Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance documents available at https:// www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html. 20 Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA’s draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.’’ May 7, 2010. Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 18 S. 19 Integrated asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 15 United Nations Environment Programme 2002, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 15, Hydrogen Chloride: CAS N°:7647–01–0. October 25, 2002. https://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/ sids/7647010.pdf. 16 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride. 17 Albert, R.E., et al., Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 597 (1982). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 additional information, while low confidence RfCs are recognized as being based on less complete data and so may be subject to change if additional data is developed.21 It is important to note that a ‘‘low confidence’’ label does not indicate that the EPA believes that the RfC is unreliable. For a given chemical, if there are not adequate or appropriate data with which to derive an RfC, one is not calculated. All RfCs, even those with low confidence, are appropriate for regulatory use. We disagree with the comment that without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist. The EPA toxicity assessments for specific chemicals are conducted using well-established EPA guidance on how to assess potential hazard of chemicals and how to conduct dose response assessments to arrive at a chemical concentration below which we do not expect adverse effects to occur (i.e., threshold). These assessments include the derivation of a RfC which is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages [e.g., children]) over a lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to account for relevant extrapolations, including extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL, and to reflect additional limitations of the data used.22 23 Comment: One commenter stated that the studies the EPA relied upon only investigated respiratory effects and did not consider other ways HCl could cause harm. The commenter noted the EPA has acknowledged that the RfC is an ‘‘inhalation RfC’’ and represents the health risk and toxicity associated with the inhalation pathway of exposure only (75 FR 32031). The commenter stated that the EPA identified no studies that indicate whether exposure to HCl—at 0.02 mg/m3 or any other concentration—harms other bodily systems. Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the agency investigated only respiratory effects and that it did not consider other ways in which HCl can cause harm. In the principal studies PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 21 U.S. EPA Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk Analysis Web site. Air Toxics Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013– 08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf. 22 U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. EPA/600/8– 90/066F, Oct 1994. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0291–0160. 23 U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. EPA/ 630/P–02/002F, Dec 2002. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES upon which the RfC is based, a complete necropsy was performed on all animals. Histologic sections were prepared from the nasal cavity, lung, trachea, larynx, liver, kidneys, testes, and other organs where gross pathological signs were present. Due to the reactive nature of HCl, however, portal of entry effects are anticipated to occur first and at lower exposure concentrations. The IRIS assessment 24 for HCl included a comprehensive review of all the available toxicity data for HCl. No effects are expected to occur at exposures of HCl at or below the level of the RfC. Comment: One commenter stated that the RfC is an inadequate basis for establishing a threshold because it ‘‘did not reflect any potential cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual’s exposure to multiple HAP or to a combination of HAP and criteria pollutants’’ and noted that the EPA recognized the potential for cumulative and synergistic effects was important in its consideration of risk-based standards in two recent rulemakings (see 75 FR 32031 and 76 FR 25050). The commenter stated that there is no ‘‘established’’ threshold at the RfC for HCl, because the CalEPA has determined a lower and more healthprotective value than the RfC. The EPA’s chronic inhalation RfC is 0.02 mg/m3, while California’s chronic inhalation REL is 0.009 mg/m3.25 The commenter stated that CalEPA’s REL is based on the same science as the IRIS RfC but was developed more recently than the EPA’s RfC, which was last revised in 1995.26 The REL is ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no health effects are anticipated in the general human population,’’ and the EPA’s process for developing RELs ‘‘is similar to that used by EPA to develop IRIS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review.’’ 27 The commenter asserted that the EPA and CalEPA disagree about the concentration of HCl exposure at which no health effects are expected and that 24 IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. https:// www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm (Accessed on July 24, 2015) 25 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), OEHHA Acute, 8-Hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (REL)s, https://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/Allrels.html (last accessed Mar. 12, 2015). 26 California OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries Using the Previous Version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines at 311 (1999), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/ AppendixD3_final.pdf. 27 EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a HealthBased Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category, May 19, 2014, Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291–0132. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 the disagreement stems from how to account for uncertainty and variability in interpreting the study results. The fact that two agencies have determined significantly different ‘‘safe’’ levels, the commenter contended, demonstrates as a matter of law that there is no ‘‘established’’ health threshold for HCl and precludes the EPA from lawfully setting CAA section 112(d)(4) standards for HCl. The commenter stated that the statute requires that a health threshold ‘‘has been established’’ and argued the legislative history indicates Congress intended for CAA section 112(d)(4) limits to be used only where there was a ‘‘well-established’’ level that presents ‘‘no risk’’ of adverse effects and about which there was no ‘‘dispute.’’ 28 The commenter asserted that Congress did not grant the Administrator the authority to establish the threshold itself and that the EPA does not have authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in situations where there is disagreement among expert agencies as to what the correct health threshold should be. The commenter asserted that by failing to address the CalEPA REL, the EPA contravened its obligation under administrative law to address significant evidence that detracts from the agency’s conclusion. The commenter stated that for the EPA to rely solely on the IRIS RfC, the EPA would need to explain why the CalEPA REL is incorrect and why the IRIS RfC reflects the best available science and risk assessment practices, particularly when the IRIS RfC and CalEPA REL thresholds are based on the same science and when the EPA relied upon CalEPA RELs at several other points in its proposal (e.g., the EPA used the CalEPA REL for acute inhalation exposure to HCl as the basis for its CAA section 112(d)(4) standards). If the EPA considers CalEPA’s acute REL for HCl to reflect a reliable value, then the commenter stated it is arbitrary to disregard CalEPA’s chronic REL for HCl. The commenter further noted the EPA relied upon the CalEPA chronic REL for HF in order to determine a threshold for HF and argued that using the CalEPA REL for HF but not for HCl is arbitrary. Response: At an initial point, with respect to the comment that different agencies have identified different thresholds and so ‘‘as a matter of law’’ there is no ‘‘established’’ health threshold for HCl, the EPA disagrees that the phrase ‘‘has been established’’ in CAA section 112(d)(4) means that there is universal agreement on the 28 S. PO 00000 Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65491 health threshold level and that differences between CalEPA and the EPA demonstrate that no health threshold ‘‘has been established.’’ The statute does not clearly identify who must establish the health threshold or how such threshold should be established. In the absence of such specificity in the statute, the EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(4) to authorize the EPA to set health-based limits where, in the EPA’s expert judgment, there is a health threshold for the pollutant below which no adverse health effects are expected to occur. Further, we disagree with the comment that there is no established threshold at the RfC because CalEPA developed a reference value at a lower concentration than the RfC. The approaches used by both agencies are similar and assume a threshold below which adverse health effects would not be expected; however, there are some differences between agencies in methods for deriving the estimate for a threshold that may affect the final resulting values. Both agencies use the best available science to support their risk assessments. The EPA has an approach for selecting appropriate health benchmark values and, in general, this approach places greater weight on the EPA derived health benchmarks than those from other agencies. The approach favoring EPA benchmarks (when they exist) has been endorsed by the SAB and ensures use of values most consistent with wellestablished and scientifically-based EPA science policy.29 Specifically for HCl, we selected the IRIS RfC for HCl as the most appropriate chronic noncancer health threshold to use for this rule. In the case of HF, there is not an EPA RfC available and the only chronic reference value from an authoritative source and appropriate for use in this rule is the California REL. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA’s decision to set a HBEL for HF. These commenters contended the EPA does not have the authority to set HF standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the scientific data supporting the EPA’s findings regarding the carcinogenic potential of HF are insufficient and unreliable. Three commenters asserted that the EPA should not adopt HBEL for 29 Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA’s draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.’’ May 7, 2010. Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES HF due to uncertainty about the vulnerabilities of children, infants, and fetuses to HF exposures at the REL concentration used by the EPA to set the HF emissions standards. Two commenters noted that the proposal states, ‘‘There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic potential of HF’’ (79 FR 75641) and ‘‘[t]he EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75640) and questioned how the agency could be confident that HF is eligible to be a threshold pollutant if its status as a non-carcinogen is uncertain. One commenter noted that the EPA failed to identify an established, welldefined health-based threshold, below which HF does not cause cancer, that is based on reliable science and has a high level of certainty. The EPA has stated that ‘‘carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature’’ (79 FR 75641) and that the EPA ‘‘has not classified HF for carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75640). The commenter stated that it is possible that HF causes cancer because increased rates of cancer have been observed in workers exposed to a mixture of chemicals that included fluoride 30 and noted that the EPA acknowledged data suggesting that those with occupational exposure to HF have greater than normal occurrences of cancer.31 The commenter stated that, because of the data showing possible carcinogenic effect, as well as the data showing mutagenic effect in animals, the EPA does not have enough evidence to classify HF as a threshold pollutant with any level of confidence. The commenter stated that the EPA failed to explain how it weighed the conflicting evidence of HF’s carcinogenicity and considered EPA’s conclusion to be arbitrary and capricious. Three commenters noted that the EPA does not consider HF in its IRIS database but noted that HF breaks down into fluorine, which is included in IRIS.32 One commenter stated that IRIS indicates no data are available to determine an RfC for chronic inhalation exposure to fluorine.33 This commenter further noted that IARC ‘‘has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not 30 Gallerani, M., et al., Systemic and topical effects of intradermal hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998). 31 EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site: Hydrogen Fluoride, https://www.epa.gov/ ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html (last updated Oct. 18, 2013). 32 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride) (CASRN 7782–41–4), https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 33 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 classifiable.’’ 34 Another commenter stated that health-based standards should be considered only for HAP that are contained in IRIS with a high level of confidence in the RfC. One commenter noted that although the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) database does not contain HF,35 the database does provide evidence that HF has a mutagenic effect in animals. This conclusion was supported by other scientific reviews 36 and by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which states that ‘‘the overall evidence from human animal studies is mixed’’ on the question of whether fluoride is carcinogenic when inhaled.37 Four commenters questioned the EPA’s reliance on a CalEPA risk assessment, noting that the CalEPA REL is based on a study of adults exposed to HF in the workplace 38 and therefore, did not include any children. Two commenters stated that a 10X ‘‘intraspecies’’ factor was applied to account for variability among humans, but noted that CalEPA expressed concern about ‘‘the potentially greater susceptibility of children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone growth in early years.’’ 39 One commenter recommended the EPA use an additional default factor of at least 10X to account for uncertainty regarding health risks to children, infants, and fetuses. The commenter stated that a 10X factor would be consistent with the NAS recommendation40 and with the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).41 Another commenter stated that recent 34 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine at 8. 35 EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/ ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last updated Jan. 6, 2015). 36 See, e.g., National Research Council of the National Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91–92, available at https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf. 37 National Research Council of the National Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91–92, available at https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf. 38 Derryberry O.M., et al., Fluoride exposure and worker health-The health status of workers in a fertilizer manufacturing plant in relation to fluoride exposure, 6 Arch. Environ. Health. 503 (1963). 39 OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 40 National Research Council of the National Academies, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, at 190–93 (2009). 41 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C) (requiring that, in establishing, modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, ‘‘for purposes of clause (ii)(I) an additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide chemical residue and other sources of exposure shall be applied’’ to protect infants and children). PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 science not considered at the time CalEPA adopted the REL provides further support for prior research showing that HF has neurodevelopmental effects on children and that children living in high-fluoride areas have been observed to have lower IQ scores than those living in lowfluoride areas.42 The commenter asserted that the adverse effects of fluoride on children are likely to be more severe, and long-lasting, compared with effects on adults. One commenter stated that the CalEPA REL is based on a study that only examined the increased bone density (skeletal fluorosis) endpoint and noted that CalEPA stated that ‘‘[t]he primary uncertainty in the study was the lack of a comprehensive health effects examination.’’ 43 The commenter stated that the EPA does not know whether neurodevelopmental harm, or other health effects, are more sensitive than skeletal harm; therefore, the EPA cannot lawfully set a ‘‘safe’’ threshold at a concentration that poses ‘‘no risk’’ of health effects with ‘‘an ample margin of safety’’ based on a study that lacks ‘‘a comprehensive health effects examination.’’ Another commenter asserted that the EPA has insufficient data showing exposure to HF at the REL value ‘‘presents no risk’’ of harm to other bodily systems. The commenter noted that HF is a possible reproductive toxin,44 that occupational studies of women exposed to fluoride identified increased rates of menstrual irregularities,45 and that animal studies have found that fluoride impairs reproduction and increases the rates of fetal bone and teeth malformation.46 In addition, chronic inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation and congestion of the nose and throat 42 See Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis, 120 Envtl. Health Perspect. 1362 (Oct. 2012), https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/ (reviewing and discussing findings from over 20 studies); Choi, A.L., et al., Association of Lifetime Exposure to Fluoride and Cognitive Functions in Chinese Children: A Pilot Study, 47 Neurotox. & Teratology 96 (Jan.–Feb. 2015). 43 OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 44 Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Massachusetts Chemical Fact Sheet: Hydrofluoric Acid, at 1, available at https://www.turi.org/content/ download/3663/44840/file/ Fact_Sheet_Hydrofluoric_Acid.pdf. 45 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds, EPA/600/8–89/ 002F (1988). 46 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine; EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES and bronchitis,47 and animal studies found increased rates of kidney and liver damage from hydrofluoric acid inhalation.48 Further, HF readily penetrates the skin, causing deep tissue layer destruction,49 and ingestion of HF may result in vomiting and abdominal pain, with painful necrotic lesions, hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis reported after significant exposure.50 The commenter stated the CalEPA REL was developed by CalEPA using an outdated version of CalEPA’s Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines (1999) that has been ‘‘superseded’’ by the more recent guidelines released in February 2015.51 The commenter noted the 1999 version required updating in part because it did not include sufficient consideration of ‘‘infants and children in assessing risks from air toxics.’’ Response: The EPA has not reviewed HF in the IRIS program. However, we concur with the two recent authoritative assessments by ATSDR (2003) 52 and the European Union (2002) 53 that the 47 CalEPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. 48 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. 49 Burgher, Francois, et al., Experimental 70% hydrofluoric acid burns: histological observations in an established human skin explants ex vivo model, 30.2 Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology 100 (2011). 50 CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Hydrogen Fluoride/ Hydrofluoric Acid, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html. 51 OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 1; CalEPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (Feb. 2015), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/ 2015GuidanceManual.pdf. 52 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)—‘‘Although elevated cancer rates have been reported in some occupational groups exposed to hydrogen fluoride and fluoride dusts, these studies were not controlled for the multiple substance exposures to which industrial workers are generally exposed. Because of these multiple exposures and the problem inherent in all occupational studies in identifying appropriate reference populations, only limited evidence from such studies is specifically relevant to the investigation of possible carcinogenic effects of long-term dermal exposure to hydrofluoric acid and inhalation exposure to hydrogen fluoride and/or fluoride dusts in human beings. As noted previously, IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable.’’ 53 European Union Risk Assessment Report (2001)—‘‘Carcinogenicity studies, in which HF has been tested, are not available. Studies with NaF may provide insight in the carcinogenicity of HF, especially for systemic tumours. With the latter substance 4 animal studies have been performed, 2 in which NaF was supplied in the drinking water to rats and mice, and two in which NaF was administered via the diet, again to rats and mice . . . .In the rat drinking water study, equivocal indications for osteosarcomas in males were obtained, but the rat diet study was negative, VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 available evidence does not support classifying HF as ‘‘Carcinogenic to Humans,’’ ‘‘Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ or as having ‘‘Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential’’ (U.S. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005)). All of the studies cited by the commenter are from exposure to fluoride and not from inhalation exposures to HF. Neurodevelopmental effects may be relevant to high fluoride exposures, but the existing evidence shows these effects may occur at fluoride exposure levels beyond those that would cause respiratory effects if HF were the sole source of exposure. In the study of Lund (1997),54 plasma fluoride concentrations were shown to increase in the nanogram per milliliter (ng/ml) range from exposures to HF in the mg/m3 level (e.g., elevations of approximately 20 nanograms fluoride per milliliter in plasma resulted from 1hour exposure to 2 mg/m3 HF, with notable respiratory and eye irritation effects). Reproductive and developmental effects in rats have been noted from experiments 55 with plasma F levels in the 150 ng/ml range maintained for over 4 months. The primary issue in causing neurodevelopmental effects (which have yet to be quantified) is likely associated with aggregate and cumulative exposure from multiple sources of fluorides (e.g., water, food, toothpaste) which are despite clear indications of fluoride intoxication. The mouse drinking water study was also negative. The mouse diet study was confounded by the presence of a retrovirus which may have (co)induced the growth of benign osteomas thus thwarting the interpretation of the study. In the diet studies (Maurer et al. 1990; Maurer et al. 1993) bone fluoride levels were higher than in the drinking water studies (NTP 1990), while in the diet studies no indications for osteosarcomas were obtained. Furthermore, the osteomas were considered to be reminiscent of hyperplasias rather than true bone neoplasms. It was concluded that the available data is sufficient to suggest that fluoride is not a carcinogenic substance in animals (Janssen and Knaap 1994) . . . Based on epidemiological data IARC (1982) concluded that the evidence for carcinogenicity of orally taken fluoride in humans is inadequate. Recent studies (cited in CEPA 1993; Janssen and Knaap 1994) did not supply evidence of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water and cancer mortality, either. US–EPA, reviewing the epidemiological data for fluoride, stated that no conclusion can be drawn as to the carcinogenicity of fluoride after inhalatory exposure, because in all studies available, humans were exposed to other substances as well (Thiessen 1988).’’ 54 Lund K, Ekstrand J, Boe J, S<strand P, and Kongerud J. (1997) Exposure to hydrogen fluoride: an experimental study in humans of concentrations of fluoride in plasma, symptoms, and lung function. Occup Environ Med. 54(1):32–37. 55 Oencue, M, Kocak, A, Karaoz, E; Darici, H; Savilk, E; and Gultekin, F (2007) Effect of long-term fluoride exposure on lipid peroxidation and histology of testes in first- and second-generation rats. Biological Trace Element Research 118:260– 268. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65493 greater contributors to total fluoride body burden and uncontrollable variables in establishing this rule, which deals with exposures to HF only. The EPA also disagrees with the comment that a children’s default safety factor of 10 should be added to the CalEPA REL for HF. In response to the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the FQPA (1996)56 to the EPA non-cancer reference value derivation, the agency evaluated its methods for considering children’s risk in the development of reference values. As part of its response, the EPA (i.e., the Science Policy Council and Risk Assessment Forum) established the RfD/RfC Technical Panel to develop a strategy for implementing the FQPA and examine the issues relative to protecting children’s health and application of the 10X safety factor. One of the outcomes of the Technical Panel’s efforts was an in depth review of a number of issues related to the RfD/ RfC process (U.S. EPA 2002). The most critical aspect in the derivation of a reference value pertaining to the FQPA has to do with variation between individual humans and is accounted for by a default uncertainty factor when no chemical-specific data are available. The EPA reviewed the default UF for interhuman variability and found the EPA’s default value of 10 adequate for all susceptible populations and lifestages, including children and infants. The EPA also recommends the use of chemicalspecific data in preference to default uncertainty factors when available (U.S. EPA, 1994, 2011) and is developing Agency guidance to facilitate consistency in the development and use of data-derived extrapolation factors for RfCs and reference doses (RfDs) (U.S. EPA, 2011).57 58 In agreement with the recommendations of the RfC review, CalEPA chronic REL for HF was derived using an inter-individual uncertainty factor of 10, which is considered adequate by the EPA for accounting for all susceptible populations and lifestages, including children and infants. Regarding the comment that CalEPA’s Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines 56 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide: Regulating Pesticides. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). 1996. Available at https:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/ backgrnd.htm. 57 U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. (EPA/600/8–90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket Item No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0291–0160. 58 U.S. EPA (2011). Office of the Science Advisor, Risk Assessment Forum. Recommended Use of Body Weight3⁄4 as the Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. February 2011. EPA/ 100/R11/0001. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 65494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (1999) have been ‘‘superseded’’ by the more recent guidelines released in February 2015, the EPA reviewed the February 2015 Guidelines information provided by the commenter and concluded that this information does not include methods for conducting hazard identification and dose response assessments, which are the analyses that preclude the derivation of a reference value. Therefore, the information provided by the commenter does not apply to the CalEPA REL derivation methods. The commenter’s assertion that the NATA database does not contain HF is incorrect; NATA 2005 (cited above by the commenter) does include noncancer risk estimates for HF. The HF cancer risks are not included in NATA because a quantitative cancer analysis for HF does not exist. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA’s decision to set a HBEL for Cl2 and stated the EPA does not have the authority to set Cl2 standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the EPA does not have reliable scientific data demonstrating a ‘‘safe’’ threshold for Cl2 and has not demonstrated Cl2 presents no cancer risk. Two commenters noted that in the proposal, the EPA stated that, ‘‘the agency presumptively considers Cl2 to be a threshold pollutant.’’ The commenters asserted that a presumption is not adequate for EPA to justify setting a health-based standard for Cl2 under CAA section 112(d)(4). One commenter stated that it is possible that Cl2 is carcinogenic and noted that Cl2 has not undergone a complete evaluation and determination of human carcinogenic potential under the IRIS program.59 The IARC and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl2 gas for human carcinogenicity. The commenter stated that the absence of data showing carcinogenicity is not the same as data demonstrating that a substance is not carcinogenic. According to the commenter, Congress authorized CAA section 112(d)(4) standards only where a threshold ‘‘has been established.’’ In other words, there must be an alreadyestablished threshold for which there is direct evidence that the pollutant presents ‘‘no’’ harm at the threshold level of exposure, and the law requires ‘‘well-established’’ factual evidence.60 The commenter asserted that the EPA is not authorized to set risk-based 59 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 60 S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 standards based on a ‘‘presumption’’ of the existence of a safe level of exposure and that by doing so, the EPA would violate the law and fail to ensure adequate protection from the health risks of hazardous pollution. The commenter stated that the EPA cannot set a health threshold for Cl2 based on a chronic inhalation study on monkeys because that study did not determine a NOAEL. The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) does not permit risk-based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined. The commenter stated that, at a minimum, Congress required that a threshold be based on the ‘‘ ‘no observable [adverse] effects level’ (NOAEL) below which human exposure is presumably ‘safe.’ ’’ 61 If there is no established nonzero ‘‘threshold’’ level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious health effects, then the commenter asserted that the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant at a given level presents ‘‘no’’ harm. Two commenters stated that IRIS contains ‘‘no data’’ on an RfC for chronic inhalation exposure.62 The ATSDR MRL on which the proposed Cl2 threshold is based is a ‘‘screening value[] only’’ and ‘‘[is] not [an] indicator[] of health effects.’’ 63 According to the ATSDR, ‘‘Exposures to substances at doses above MRLs will not necessarily cause adverse health effects and should be further evaluated,’’ ‘‘MRLs are intended to serve only as a screening tool to help you decide if you should more closely evaluate exposures to a substance found at a site,’’ and ‘‘uncertainties are associated with [the] techniques’’ used to derive MRLs.64 One commenter stated that the MRL does not account for the potentially greater susceptibility of children, infants, and fetuses to Cl2 exposures 65 and noted that CalEPA has recognized that Cl2 is a toxic air contaminant ‘‘that may disproportionately impact infants and children’’ because it can exacerbate asthma.66 Therefore, the commenter 61 S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171, 176. Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine. 63 ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 Update): Appendix F, https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 2005). 64 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14. 65 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine at 20–21 (observing that a value similar to the MRL could be calculated using the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) approach if an uncertainty factor of only 3 for human variability is used and no child-safety uncertainty factor is used). 66 CalEPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act, at 27–28. 62 EPA, PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 asserted the MRL does not reflect an ‘‘established’’ safe health threshold at which exposure presents ‘‘no’’ adverse effects and that it is unlawful for the EPA to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards for Cl2. Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific evidence on Cl2 (as discussed in detail previously in this section) and concluded that there is no evidence that Cl2 is a carcinogen and that this information is sufficient to support this regulatory decision. The MRL for Cl2 was developed using the benchmark dose analysis method, which has been widely adopted across the risk assessment community and by the EPA’s Risk Assessment Forum 67 as a more reliable estimate of a threshold for an effect than a NOAEL or LOAEL. As a result, the REL for Cl2 does define a threshold. Regarding the assertion that the MRL does not take into consideration the potential for greater potential effects in children, in the development of the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine,68 ATSDR performed an exhaustive review of all of the relevant health effects data available at the time. Until new information becomes available, the Cl2 MRL is the most credible, scientifically grounded toxicity assessment for Cl2 and the most appropriate reference value to use in this regulatory action. In the light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk from Cl2 exposure and the evidence of an existing threshold below which Cl2 is not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for Cl2. Comment: One commenter referenced an NAS review of chemical health evaluations in the United States that concluded improvements in both chemical testing and risk assessment are needed to assure current risk evaluations protect people from toxic chemicals.69 The NAS recommended the EPA use ‘‘A consistent, unified 67 U.S. EPA (2012) Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/100/R–12/001, June 2012. Available online at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-01/documents/benchmark_dose_ guidance.pdf. 68 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2010. Toxicological profile for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 69 See National Research Council of the National Academies, Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007); National Research Council of the National Academies, Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks Ahead (2008); NAS, Science and Decisions. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES approach for dose-response modeling that includes formal, systematic assessment of background disease processes and exposures, possible vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a chemical’s doseresponse relationship in humans; that approach redefines the RfD or RfC as a risk-specific dose that provides information on the percentage of the population that can be expected to be above or below a defined acceptable risk with a specific degree of confidence.’’ The NAS also observed that ‘‘[n]oncancer effects do not necessarily have a threshold, or low-dose nonlinearity’’ and found that ‘‘[b]ecause the RfD and RfC do not quantify risk for different magnitudes of exposure but rather provide a bright line between possible harm and safety, their use in risk-risk and risk-benefit comparisons and in risk-management decisionmaking is limited.’’ 70 The commenter stated that there may be no safe threshold in the human population for many chemicals and that newer studies show many chemicals increase the risk of various noncancer health effects—such as reproductive harm and neurological effects—at low doses, without any scientifically identifiable threshold.71 The commenter noted that even if a threshold is established for an individual, when risk is assessed across a diverse population, it is unlikely the same threshold applies to all individuals because some people are more vulnerable than others. The commenter stated that, to address the fact that very low levels of noncarcinogen exposures can pose health risks, NAS recommended that cancer and chronic non-cancer risk assessment use the same approach.72 The commenter noted that the use of RfCs for dose-response risk assessment of chronic non-cancer health effects may significantly underestimate risk: ‘‘For these health effects, risk assessments focus on defining the reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC), which is defined as a dose ‘likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects’ over a lifetime of exposure. In actual fact, these levels may pose appreciable risks.’’ 73 70 Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health (2012), available at https://www.nrdc.org/ health/files/strengthening-toxic-chemicalriskassessments-report.pdf (citing NAS, Science and Decisions). 71 Janssen et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health. 72 NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8–9, 265–66. 73 Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health at 10. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 The commenter asserted that the EPA ignored the best available, current science showing that pollutants have health effects at low doses in its evaluation of health thresholds for HCl, HF, and Cl2 and ignored NAS’s recommendation that the EPA use similar approaches for chronic noncancer as for cancer risk assessment, which presumes deleterious health effects for any amount of exposure. According to the commenter, the EPA lacked sufficient data to demonstrate that these pollutants do not cause harm at low levels of exposure over time and cannot be certain that there exists an established, safe health threshold at the proposed thresholds. The commenter also stated that, because it must be assumed that these pollutants cause harm at low doses, it is impossible for the EPA to meet the CAA’s requirement for an ‘‘ample margin of safety.’’ The commenter concluded the EPA’s use of CAA section 112(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2 is indefensible because the EPA determined the thresholds based on studies that did not identify a level at which no health effects were observed (i.e., a NOAEL) and the EPA itself has low confidence in the proposed thresholds. Response: The NAS has recognized that many of the recommended changes for the IRIS Program will need to be incorporated over a number of years and further recommended that assessments continue to be developed as the recommendations are implemented (i.e., the regulatory process should not be halted until all recommendations can be enacted). Improvements will thus be made over time and the best science available will be used in the interim. Further, the EPA has a legal obligation to proceed with regulatory action based on the best, currently available tools. The EPA’s conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals across agencies, e.g., the EPA’s IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The toxicity assessments (which may include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity assessments) provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review processes before they are published. In addition, the SAB has endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA’s risk assessments in the RTR program. Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been classified as PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65495 carcinogenic or suggestive of the potential to be carcinogenic, individually or in combination by existing authoritative bodies including the EPA, CalEPA, IARC, OECD, and the European Community. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and Cl2 are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA 112(d)(4) for these pollutants. 2. Co-Benefits Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s proposal not to set MACT standards for acid gases did not fully consider the co-benefits of controlling criteria pollutants. The commenter noted that the legislative history makes clear that employing a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT standard ‘‘shall not result in adverse environmental effect which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated.’’ 74 The EPA asserted that where there is an established health threshold, the agency may weigh additional factors in making a judgment as to whether to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards or MACT standards, including ‘‘[c]o-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutants’’ (79 FR 75622). The commenter asserted that it is impossible to make this assessment without evaluating the full collateral benefits of a MACT standard. The commenter noted that the EPA has recognized that MACT standards for HCl in other source categories resulted in reductions in emissions of PM, hydrogen cyanide, and other criteria and HAP pollutants and has relied upon the co-benefits of these reductions as a basis for not setting risk-based standards for those other source categories.75 74 S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 54970, 54984 (Sept. 9, 2010) (‘‘Setting technologybased MACT standards for HCl . . . would likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-volatile compounds.’’); id. at 54,985 (‘‘Setting an HCl standard under 112(d)(2) and (3) allows the Agency to also address’’ HCN, ammonia, and other pollutants.); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, 74 FR 21136, 21160 (May 6, 2009) (‘‘[S]etting a MACT standard for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant amount of control for other pollutants emitted by cement kilns, most notably SO2 and other acid gases, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-volatile compounds.’’); 75 FR 32030 75 See, E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM Continued 26OCR3 65496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES However, for BSCP and clay ceramics plants, the EPA only considered the cobenefits of reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2). The commenter argued the EPA should have considered the significant reductions in PM, hydrogen cyanide, and other pollutants that would likely result from MACT standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2, as these are the same reductions that the EPA considered in its past rulemakings. The commenter stated that these reductions will provide enormous health and environmental benefits that would not occur if CAA section 112(d)(4) standards are finalized instead. Response: Although not explicitly stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA agrees with the commenter that MACT standards for acid gases for BSCP manufacturing facilities are associated with additional reductions of PM emissions (approximately 460 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the standards) and non-Hg HAP metals emissions. No additional PM or non-Hg HAP metals emission reductions would be expected from sanitaryware tunnel kilns because it is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits for HF and HCl without additional APCD. The EPA has no information suggesting that HCN is emitted from BSCP or clay ceramics manufacturing facilities, so no reduction in HCN would be expected from MACT standards for HF, HCl, and Cl2. For the past rulemakings in which the EPA considered co-benefits as part of a CAA section 114(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA did not quantify the PM emissions reductions associated with MACT standards (see 79 FR 75641, footnote 27), so a direct comparison of the cobenefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP with the cobenefits of these other rules for PM is not possible. The only pollutant with quantified emissions reductions in the co-benefits analyses for these other rulemakings was SO2, so that was the pollutant highlighted in the co-benefits analysis for BSCP and clay ceramics at (‘‘[S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO2, non-condensable PM, and other nonHAP acid gases (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury and other HAP metals (e.g., selenium).’’); 76 FR 25051 (‘‘[S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO2, PM, and other nonHAP acid gases (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of Hg and other HAP metals (e.g., Se).’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 proposal. The additional nationwide reductions of SO2 that would be attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are estimated to be only 4,700 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the standards. No additional nationwide reductions of SO2 would be attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP because it is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits without additional APCD. As noted at proposal, these reductions are substantially lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a HBEL, and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit. 3. Ecosystem Impacts Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the ecological impacts of the proposed HBEL for acid gases. The commenter stated that federal, state and local agencies have struggled for years to reduce emissions of SO2 and other acid gases to prevent the devastating effects of acid rain on large ecosystems and noted the proposed standards would likely result in the acidification of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing sources. The commenter asserted the ecological impact analysis of the emissions standards for this proposal is inadequate. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ecological analysis is inadequate. The environmental screening analysis evaluated potential damage and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic direct exposure to HCl and HF emitted by clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and BSCP manufacturing facilities into the air. The chronic 90-day benchmarks used in the environmental risk screen for the acid gases are shown in Table 7 of this preamble and discussed in the following section. TABLE 7—ACID GAS BENCHMARKS INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SCREEN Chronic 90-day benchmark in μg/m3 a Acid gas Hydrochloric acid—LOEL ..... Hydrofluoric acid—Plant Community LOEL .............. Hydrofluoric acid—Plant Community LOEL .............. a Micrograms PO 00000 Frm 00028 per cubic meter. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 b50 0.5 0.4 b Note that the human health RfC is 20 μg/ m3, which is lower than the ecological benchmark. For HCl, the EPA identified chronic benchmark concentrations as described in a 2009 EPA document on RTR risk assessment methodologies.76 The chronic benchmark for HCl was based on a lowest observed effects level (LOEL) from a short-term exposure (20 minutes) that related HCl concentration to ‘‘changes’’ in the leaves of 7 out of 8 plant species as reported by Lerman et al.77 It was the lowest exposure concentration at which effects of any type were seen (visible injury to some proportion of leaves). Haber’s law was used to extrapolate the 1.5 mg/m3 LOEL concentration (20-minute exposure) to a 0.5 mg/m3 concentration expected to produce the same effect after 1 hour. The 1-hour estimated LOEL was extrapolated to a chronic benchmark by dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.050 mg/m3, or 50 mg/m3. For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations for plants in the environmental screening analysis. The value of 0.5 mg HF/m3 is based on the Washington State criterion for gaseous HF and represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 mg HF/m3 is based on the Environment Canada criteria and also represents a LOEL. To protect vegetation from adverse effects resulting from HF exposure, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 78 recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 mg/m3 over a 30- to 90-day period; HF concentrations can be higher for shorter exposures). Environment Canada 79 defined the effect represented by the level of 0.4 mg HF/m3 as: The level above which there are demonstrated effects on human health and/ 76 U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09– 006. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291– 0044. 77 Lerman, S., O.C. Taylor, and E.F. Darley, 1976. Phytotoxicity of Hydrogen Chloride Gas with a Short-Term Exposure. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 10, pp. 873–878. 78 CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1–896997–34–1. Available at https://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/ 133/. 79 EC. (Environment Canada). 1996. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). Science Assessment Document. A Report by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. July. ISBN 0– 662–25641–7, Catalogue En42–17/6–1997. Available online at: https://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/ sections/mandats/ap50_rio_tinto_alcan/ documents/DQ3.1.1.pdf. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES or the environment. It is scientifically based and defines the boundary between the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). It is considered to be the level of exposure just below that most likely to result in a defined and identifiable but minimal effect. The reference levels have no safety factors applied to them, as they are related directly to the LOAEL, and are the most conservative estimates of the effect level. High concentrations of HF in the air have also been linked to fluorosis in livestock. However, the HF concentrations at which fluorosis in livestock occur are higher than those at which plant damage begins. Therefore, the benchmarks for plants are protective of both plants and livestock. For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentration of HCl around each facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any facility. For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentration of HF around each Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facility did not exceed the ecological benchmark. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no greater than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects. For BSCP Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl and HF around each facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks. In addition, the area over which the HCl or HF benchmarks were exceeded was less than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility in the category, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects. The EPA did not conduct an assessment of the potential for emissions of HCl to cause acidification in close proximity to the sources in this category. Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid rain, primarily occurs when emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere (with water, oxygen, and oxidants) to form various acidic VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 compounds.80 Although some studies indicate that HCl emissions could contribute to acidification around emission sources in certain environments,81 its overall effect relative to NOX and SO2 emissions would be small. In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their assertion that the proposed standards would result in the acidification of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and structural clay products manufacturing facilities. 4. Cumulative Effects Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA did not fully consider the cumulative effects of exposure to HAP when proposing the health-based standard under CAA section 112(d)(4). The commenter asserted that the agency assumed there are no cumulative health and environmental impacts of concern and argued the EPA cannot ensure that its proposed standards include an ample margin of safety without properly accounting for the additive and/or synergistic effects of multiple pollutants and the cumulative effects of nearby emissions. Another commenter stated that the EPA made no adjustments to the HBEL it selected to account for the potential for harm from exposures other than to the amounts of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it proposed to allow. Specifically, the EPA must consider emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl2 and other pollutants with biologically similar endpoints (i.e., that cause respiratory harm) from sources in the source category as well as from any co-located sources and other stationary or mobile sources located such that their emissions affect people who are also exposed to the emissions subject to the NESHAP. The commenter asserted that the EPA cannot lawfully set limits ‘‘with an ample margin of safety’’ when it ignores other sources of exposure and cumulative health effects. The commenter asserted that, to protect exposed populations, the regulated sources must reduce their emissions to a level that ensures the total concentration of pollutants will remain below the pollutants’ respective health thresholds. The commenter asserted that the EPA’s decision to ignore the impact of other emissions and background concentrations in the implementation of the HBEL is therefore arbitrary, 80 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress, 2005. Also see—https:// www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/. 81 Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental Change. Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187–1894. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65497 capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law. If the ambient concentration of a particular pollutant is already at or near the health threshold, the commenter asserted that an additional source of that pollutant or another pollutant with a biologically similar endpoint can push the exposure over the threshold, even if the additional source emits the pollutant at low concentrations. The total risk that is unacceptable for the most-exposed person in each source category must be reduced to consider the cumulative effect of these additional exposures and to create a total risk from all regulated source categories. The commenter stated that EPA’s assessment of cumulative risks posed by HCl, HF, and Cl2 emissions ignored emissions from co-located sources (for BSCP kilns), nearby sources and all other potential sources that could contribute to background levels. The commenter noted that the EPA has emissions information about co-located and nearby sources in its own databases but failed to evaluate whether cumulative exposures would exceed the health thresholds and to consider combined exposures. The commenter reviewed reports from the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web site for a number of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities and provided notes on other major source facilities in close proximity. The commenter stated that the EPA’s justifications regarding cumulative nearby emissions are legally inadequate and factually inaccurate. The commenter stated that general assertions that other operations are not ‘‘commonly’’ co-located with BSCP and clay ceramics facilities, that such facilities are ‘‘typically’’ located on large tracts of land, and that facilities are set back from property lines in rural areas are insufficient to set the emissions standard at a level that protects all people living near such facilities. The commenter stated that information in the EPA’s own databases demonstrates that BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not predominantly located in rural, sparsely populated areas, as the EPA assumes. Many of the BSCP facilities are located in urban areas, including Boral Bricks in Terre Haute, Indiana; Hanson Brick in Columbia, South Carolina; General Shale Brick in Denver, Colorado; and Cherokee Brick & Tile in Macon, Georgia.82 Similarly, in the clay 82 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Lists of 2010 Census Urban Areas, https:// www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_ all.xls. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES ceramics source category, only two of the sources are located in areas considered ‘‘rural’’ by the United States Census Bureau: American Marazzi Tile in Sunnyvale, Texas, and the Kohler Wisconsin Plant outside of Sheboygan, Wisconsin.83 The commenter stated that the EPA’s assessment of cumulative risks does not meet generally accepted good practices in risk assessment. The SAB recommended in May 2010 that the EPA incorporate ‘‘aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area’’ into its risk analysis.84 The commenter stated that the EPA must assess the total and cumulative risk burden, rather than only looking at each type of risk in a discrete, separate way, and the EPA should be integrating its assessments and performing a ‘‘comprehensive risk assessment’’ as the NAS has emphasized. After first assessing the total cancer, chronic non-cancer, and acute risks, for both inhalation and multipathway exposure, the EPA also must assess the total risks.85 The EPA must aggregate health risk for each pollutant, and each type of health risk, to create a cumulative risk determination for an individual with maximum exposure. Without a combined health risk metric, the EPA cannot make an ample margin of safety determination that is based on the full picture of health risk for these source categories. Finally, the commenter stated that this proposal is contrary to the EPA’s recent conclusion in its regulation of power plant electric generating units that ‘‘the potential cumulative public health and environmental effects of acid gas emissions’’ did not allow for CAA section 112(d)(4) standards.86 In that rulemaking, the EPA did not receive facility-specific emissions information for all the acid gases from units in the 83 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urbanrural-2010.html (revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching plant location by city listed in address). 84 Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Adm’r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA’s Draft, EPA–SAB–10–007 at 6 (May 7, 2010). 85 CalEPA, OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts at 19– 21, 25 (describing total ‘‘pollution burden’’ as sum of exposures, public health effects, and environmental effects); EPA, Concepts, Methods and Data Sources for Cumulative Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects, at 4–42 to 4–46 (Aug. 2007). 86 Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, vol. 1. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20126. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 source category, co-located sources, and all nearby sources. The EPA concluded that ‘‘cumulative impacts of acid gases on public health were not assuaged by the comments received.’’ The commenter stated that the EPA did not consider that information in this rulemaking either, and just as in the power plant rulemaking, HBEL are not lawful. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA did not consider the potential impacts of nearby BSCP and clay ceramics facilities or other nearby facilities in the determination of the HBEL for each source category. The limit reflects the impacts of all facilities in the source category. While the risk assessment did not perform a detailed modeling analysis of other nearby facilities, based on a proximity analysis of sources emitting acid gases, the EPA concludes that the emissions from these facilities would not have significantly impacted the analysis for several reasons. First, the limit reflects a hazard index (HI) less than or equal to one at the highest impacted receptor at each facility. For source categories like BSCP and clay ceramics where emission release heights are low, the highest impacted receptor is always very near (e.g., shares a common fenceline) the facility, and ambient concentrations fall quickly with distance from the source. Because of this, other facilities would have to be very near a BSCP or clay ceramics facility and have relatively high emissions to have any significant impact on the receptor with the highest estimated concentration from the BSCP or clay ceramics emissions. As in risk assessments performed under the Risk and Technology Review program, the EPA did not model the nearby sources in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) because that inventory has not received the same level of review and quality assurance that the BSCP emissions have for the purposes of this rulemaking. Although the EPA did not model the other nearby facilities, the EPA did compare the location of all sources emitting acid gases with the locations of the BSCP and clay ceramics facilities. The EPA found that only four facilities emitted acid gases within 1 kilometer of any BSCP facility. Beyond 1 kilometer, we would expect very little coincidental impacts from multiple low level sources emitting the same pollutants. The largest of these facilities emitted less than 12 tpy of HCl-equivalent emissions, or less than 5 percent of the emissions limit. The estimated HI for this BSCP facility was 0.6, so an increase of 5 percent in emissions PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 would result in an increase in HI of at most 5 percent and, thus, not increase the HI above a value of 1. There are no other sources emitting acid gases within 1 kilometer of any clay ceramics facility. Also, for the BSCP plant with the highest estimated HI, there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 5 kilometers of the facility. For the clay ceramics plant with the highest estimated HI, there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 10 kilometers of the facility. Thus, we would not expect emissions of acid gases from other sources to contribute significantly at the receptors where the maximum HI occurs due to BSCP or clay ceramic emissions, and the HI at these receptors would not exceed 1. 5. Risk Assessment Comment: One commenter stated that the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3) meteorological data used for dispersion calculations was insufficient because it included data for only 1 year (2011) from only 824 meteorological stations. The commenter asserted that this provides a very limited snapshot of air quality data and, therefore, is insufficient to determine with confidence that exposures at the proposed emissions standards pose ‘‘no risk’’ of adverse health effects. The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards without more extensive air quality information. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the meteorological data were insufficient to perform the risk assessment. Although 5 years of meteorological data are preferred for assessing chronic exposures and risks, we use a single year (2011) of meteorological data in our risk assessments because of model run times for the Human Exposure Model (HEM– 3) air dispersion model (AERMOD). Because we frequently run AERMOD for an entire source category with many individual emissions points and for many receptors, using 5 years of meteorological data would increase already significant model run times by a factor of five compared to a single year. In a sensitivity analysis of the impact of using a single year of meteorological data compared to 5 years,87 we found that modeled concentrations differed by less than 10 percent on average and, thus, the use of 87 U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09– 006. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291– 0044. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 1 year of meteorological data is not likely to appreciably affect the results of the risk assessment. The meteorological data we used were obtained from the Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program, which is a joint effort of the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The ASOS serves as the nation’s primary surface weather observing network and is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and climatological research communities. With the largest and most modern complement of weather sensors, ASOS has significantly expanded the amount of available meteorological information. The ASOS works non-stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. The ASOS is installed at more than 900 airports across the country, and our meteorological library for the year 2011 includes all of these that are without a significant number of missing hours (824 stations). Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA’s modeling understates chronic health risk by assuming that chronic exposure to HAP from BSCP and clay ceramic manufacturing sources occurs at the census block centroid and not at the facility fence or property line. The commenters stated that exposures are likely to be higher for people living closest to the plants, especially because census blocks can cover a large area and the center of a census block is almost always farther away from the facility than the facility’s property line. One commenter noted that even if the area near the property line is not developed, over time homes and businesses could locate closer to the facility. While it is possible that population distribution is homogenous over a census block, the commenter stated this assumption is not necessarily accurate in considering the predicted impacts from the location of a source. One commenter stated that no effort was made to move receptor points closer to the facility to assess chronic or cancer risk, even in those instances where local residents live nearer to a facility than the geographic centroid of the census block. This conflicts with the recommendation of the SAB, which has urged the EPA to consider ‘‘specific locations of residences.’’ 88 The commenter stated that the EPA failed to adjust receptor points for residents living on the fence-line even though the HEM–AERMOD system allows for such an adjustment, and that such an adjustment was appropriately made for the estimation of acute health risks (see, e.g., 79 FR 75644). The commenter stated that the EPA cannot justify failing to analyze chronic health effects in a similar manner. Another commenter agreed and stated that the EPA can use HEM–3 to identify the maximum individual risk at any point in a census block that is within a 50-kilometer radius from the center of the modeled facility. The commenter recommended the EPA not use the predicted chronic exposures at the census block centroid as a surrogate for the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block; instead, the EPA should use the maximum individual risk in its risk assessments, irrespective of its location in the census block. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ assertion that we relied solely on the census block centroids as receptors for human exposure. As we have noted in the development of RTR regulations, in a national-scale assessment of lifetime inhalation exposures and health risks from facilities in a source category, it is appropriate to identify exposure locations where it may be reasonably expected that an individual will spend a majority of his or her lifetime. Further, in determining chronic risks, it is appropriate to use census block information on where people actually reside, rather than points on a fenceline, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to individuals living near such facilities. Census blocks are the finest resolution available as part of the nationwide population data (as developed by the U.S. Census Bureau); each is typically comprised of approximately 50 people, or about 20 households. In the EPA risk assessments, the geographic centroid of each census block containing at least one person is used to represent the location where all the people in that census block live. The census block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then becomes the location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of that census block is assumed to experience the maximum individual risk. In some cases, because actual residence locations may be closer 88 Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA’s Draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing’’ at 4. May 7, 2010. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65499 to or farther from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or underestimate of the actual annual concentrations (although there is no systematic bias for average levels). Given the relatively small dimensions of census blocks in densely populated areas, there is little uncertainty introduced by using the census block centroids in lieu of actual residence locations. There is the potential for more uncertainty when census blocks are larger, although there is still no systematic bias. The EPA concludes that the most appropriate locations at which to estimate chronic exposures and risks are the census block centroids because: (1) Census blocks are the finest resolution available in the national census data, (2) facility fencelines do not usually represent locations where chronic exposures are likely and (3) there is no bias introduced into the estimate of the MIR by using census block centroid locations. In addition, in its peer review of the methodologies used to estimate risks as part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the EPA’s SAB endorsed this approach. In addition to the approach described above, the EPA recognizes that where a census block centroid is located on industrial property or is large and the centroid is less likely to be representative of the block’s residential locations, the block centroid may not be the appropriate surrogate. For BSCP facilities, in cases where a census block centroid was within 300 meters of any emission source (and therefore possibly on facility property), we viewed aerial images of the facility to determine whether the block centroid was likely located on facility property. Likewise, we examined aerial images of all large census blocks within 1 kilometer of any emission source. If the block centroid did not represent the residential locations within that block, we relocated it to better represent them and/or we added additional receptors for residences nearer to the facility than the centroid. For this source category, we relocated 14 census blocks that appeared to be on facility property or were otherwise not representative of the population within the block, and we modeled an additional 15 receptors in cases where the single block centroid was inadequate to characterize the population within the census blocks. Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s risk assessment did not account for the synergistic health effects from the potential exposure to multiple acid gas pollutants. Specifically, the EPA did not demonstrate that no health effects would occur if a person is chronically exposed to a combination of E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES HCl, HF, and Cl2, even if the sum of the exposures (converted into ‘‘equivalent’’ units) does not exceed the ‘‘HClequivalent’’ limit. The commenter also argued the EPA failed to provide evidence showing that the acid gases would not have synergistic effects that could cause harm at a chronic exposure concentration that is lower than the RfC, REL, or MRL of each pollutant. The commenter asserted the EPA did not seek outside peer review by the SAB or other body or request public comment on its use of dose-response values to exchange exposures of one acid gas pollutant for another prior to proposing use of ‘‘HCl-equivalents’’ standards. The commenter stated that since the EPA based the ratio for comparing HF and Cl2 emissions to HCl emissions on the RfC, REL or MRL values, and those values are uncertain and flawed (see previous comments in this section V.A, explaining that values were not based on a NOAEL, and the EPA has ‘‘low’’ confidence in the HCl RfC), the HClequivalent method cannot assure ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) requires the EPA to set separate standards for HCl and HF, and the EPA’s decision to set a HClequivalent emissions standard is unlawful and arbitrary. Response: The EPA believes that groups of chemicals can behave antagonistically or synergistically, such that combined exposure can either cause less or more harm, depending on the chemicals. To address pollutant mixtures in the determination of the HBEL, the EPA generally used the same methodology used in RTR assessments, which is to follow the EPA’s mixture guidelines.89 90 This methodology has been formally peer reviewed by the SAB.91 Following the mixture guidelines, the EPA aggregated noncancer hazard quotients (HQs) of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or that affect the same target organ. This process creates, for each target organ, a target-organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI), defined as the sum of HQs for individual HAP that 89 U.S. EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. EPA–630–R–98– 002. September 1986. 90 U.S. EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. August 2000. 91 U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2010. Review of EPA’s draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.’’ May 7, 2010. Available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 affect the same organ or organ system. All TOSHI calculations were based exclusively on effects occurring at the ‘‘critical dose’’ (i.e., the lowest dose that produces adverse health effects). The EPA actually calculated the HBEL conservatively by including HF in the calculation of equivalent emissions even though it affects a different target organ than HCl and Cl2, thereby allowing the development of a single emissions limit for all acid gases. The conservatism in the limit due to the inclusion of pollutants with different target organ systems would have the effect of ameliorating potential synergism of the acid gases. 6. Ample Margin of Safety Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s decision to set an HClequivalent HBEL, rather than set separate HBEL for HCl, HF, and Cl2. The commenter stated that, by setting one ‘‘HCl-equivalent emissions’’ limit at 250 tpy (57 lb/hr) for BSCP tunnel kilns and 600 tpy (140 lb/hr) for clay ceramics sources, each source is free to emit whatever combination of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it would like, provided the aggregate of the ‘‘HCl-equivalent emissions’’ does not exceed the limit. The commenter also noted that the HCl-equivalent HBEL for clay ceramics does not include Cl2 and requested that the EPA explain how it converted Cl2 into HCl-equivalent emissions. The commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(2) mandates that the EPA ‘‘shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section.’’ The commenter asserted that it is unlawful for the EPA not to set an emissions limit for a CAA section 112listed pollutant (Nat’l Lime Ass’n, 233 F.3d at 634) and concluded that even if the EPA believes the health risks posed by HF and Cl2 emissions can be translated into HCl-equivalent units, the proposed ‘‘HCl-equivalent’’ limit contravenes the EPA’s obligation to set CAA section 112(d) standards for each pollutant. The commenter also stated that the EPA’s approach raises questions about whether the use of ‘‘HCl-equivalents’’ results in limits that protect people against all of a pollutant’s health risks with ‘‘an ample margin of safety,’’ as required by CAA section 112(d)(4). The commenter argued that because pollutants cause different adverse health effects, they are not ‘‘equivalent’’ pollutants that cause ‘‘equivalent’’ health effects at ‘‘equivalent’’ concentrations of exposure. The commenter further argued the RfC for HCl is based on a study of respiratory PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 toxicity and is meant to protect individuals against respiratory harms from chronic exposures, while the REL used for HF is based on a study of skeletal fluorosis (increased bone density) and is meant to protect individuals against skeletal harm from chronic exposures.92 The commenter noted that the EPA focused only on the respiratory harm caused by the pollutants, when skeletal harm is the most sensitive effect for HF, and the EPA failed to explain why skeletal harm caused by a certain quantity of HF can be converted into respiratory harm caused by HCl. The commenter also noted that the EPA does not claim to be using HCl as a surrogate for HF or Cl2. The commenter stated that the EPA previously stated that HCl cannot act as a surrogate for the other acid gases because pollutants that act on humans in different manners, at different doses, cannot stand in for one another (see 76 FR 25049 and 75 FR 32031). Another commenter expressed concern the HCl-equivalent emissions limit could mask exposures or emissions of concern for the most toxic gas because the comparison would be dominated by a higher concentration pertinent to the less toxic gases. The commenter asserted that there is no analysis that justifies this combined metric and noted it would be more justifiable if the substances were in the same order of magnitude for potential potency. The commenter recommended that the EPA consider whether these gases could contribute to the acid component of ambient air that is thought to potentially contribute to cancer and other effects because these impacts appear not to have been considered by the EPA. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ assertion that the HBEL cannot be based on equivalent emissions of a single pollutant. For the BSCP Manufacturing rulemaking, the EPA used an approach specific for this NESHAP to set health-protective emissions limits that would account for the multiple acid gas pollutants emitted by the BSCP facilities. By converting the emissions of each acid gas or combination of acid gases (HCl, Cl2 and 92 OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 278. CalEPA made it clear that its REL is for ‘‘[i]ncreased bone density (skeletal fluorosis),’’ that the NOAEL was for ‘‘chronic skeletal fluorosis,’’ and that ‘‘[c]hanges in bone density . . . appear[s] to be the most sensitive health effect for chronic exposure.’’ OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 272, 278– 79. The principal study on which the REL is based did observe an increase in the incidence of acute respiratory disease, too, id. at 271, but the REL was not primarily based on that health effect. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations HF) to an HCl-equivalent emission, the EPA can estimate a single exposure concentrations for comparison with the HCl reference value (RfC). If the ratio of HCl exposure concentration to the HCl RfC value remains at or below 1, the HBEL (HCl-equivalent emissions) would ensure that the threshold values for any individual or combination of acid gases would not be exceeded (i.e., remain at or below 1). The EPA used the same approach to convert emissions of HF to an HCl-equivalent and determine the HBEL for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP; the only difference is that there are no valid Cl2 emissions data for clay ceramics facilities, so Cl2 is not included in the HBEL. Comment: Two commenters generally supported the proposed HBEL and stated that the EPA has conclusively demonstrated that the proposed HBEL would provide an ample margin of safety for HCl, HF, and Cl2 emissions from affected facilities. As the EPA explained in the proposal, the analysis was based on site specific data from each tunnel kiln, and the proposed HBEL was developed at a level that would result in an HQ of 1 at the worstcase facility. Because the potential risks at facilities other than the worst-case facility are predicted to be well below 1, the commenters stated that this analysis assures that an ample margin of safety will be provided for the ‘‘worst case’’ facility in the industry and more than an ample margin will be provided for all other affected facilities. Conversely, another commenter contended that the EPA’s proposed HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) does not include ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ The commenter disagreed with the approach the EPA used to determine the CAA section 112(d)(4) limits. Specifically, the commenter stated that by setting the limits at precisely the same level as the threshold value, the EPA proposed to allow plants to emit acid gas pollution that would expose people to amounts of pollution that reach threshold levels. The commenter stated that these limits do not include any ‘‘margin of safety,’’ let alone an ‘‘ample’’ one, as the EPA is required to include for CAA section 112(d)(4) standards. The commenter expressed concern that under the EPA’s approach, even the slightest uncertainty in the EPA’s estimates or low background levels of pollution can place health at risk because plants can emit at the health threshold. The commenter stated that the EPA did not explain how these limits would protect public health with VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ 93 The commenter asserted that a margin of safety is supposed to provide additional safety and account for uncertainty and variability that might result in harm to individuals below the threshold. The commenter further stated that an ‘‘ample’’ margin of safety must assure not only extra room for safety, but a ‘‘generous’’ margin for safety.94 The commenter noted that a TOSHI (which is the sum of the HQs) of ‘‘one’’ does not necessarily represent a safe level of exposure. The commenter asserted the EPA characterizes a TOSHI or HQ of ‘‘one’’ or less as exposures that ‘‘are not likely to cause adverse health effects’’ (79 FR 75643), but did not provide any explanation why this level would meet the statutory standard. According to the commenter, Congress intended the standard to be set at a level at which there is ‘‘no risk’’ of ‘‘adverse health effects,’’ plus ‘‘an ample margin of safety (and not considering cost).’’ 95 For these reasons, the commenter concluded that the proposed limits do not comply with the CAA and could put public health at risk. The commenter also expressed concern that the EPA did not take steps to adjust the limits to reflect the uncertainties regarding health exposures and effects. The EPA has factored in uncertainties and vulnerability factors in other rulemakings, such as when determining a Target Margin of Exposure under the FQPA, where the EPA considered whether risks below the Target Margin of Exposure warranted increased scrutiny and changes to allowable exposures.96 The commenter also stated that the EPA’s proposed limits would allow human exposures to exceed the level that CalEPA has identified is the safety minimum. Allowing human exposure to HCl concentrations above a threshold a state agency determined may cause respiratory harm, the commenter contended, would not provide the ample margin of safety required by law. The commenter further stated that the ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ language in CAA section 112(d)(4) requires that any 93 Mountain Commc’ns v. FCC, 355 F.3d 644, 648–49 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must ‘‘explain how its position can be reconciled’’ with statutory requirements). 94 Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971) defines ‘‘margin’’ as ‘‘a spare amount or measure or degree allowed or given for contingencies or special situations’’ and ‘‘ample’’ as ‘‘generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or capacity.’’ 95 S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. 96 See, e.g., EPA, Sulfuryl Fluoride; Proposed Order Granting Objections to Tolerances and Denying Request for a Stay, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 3422, 3427 (Jan. 19, 2011) (explaining use of MOE). PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65501 standard that is set under this authority must be sufficient to protect against significant unforeseen consequences.97 The commenter stated that because the ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ requirement is meant to protect against risks that have not yet been identified in research, a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard cannot be justified on grounds that the EPA does not have sufficient evidence about the health risks posed by a HAP or does not have the time or inclination to review the evidence that is available. Response: For several reasons, the EPA disagrees with the commenter who stated that the HBEL does not include an ample margin of safety. First, the limit is based on the single facility in the source category with the worst-case combination of meteorology and distance to nearest residential receptor that leads to the highest ambient concentrations. While the EPA estimates that the limit reflects an HI of one at this facility, the HI at most other facilities would be significantly lower, with approximately 90 percent of the facilities having an estimated HI less than or equal to 0.5. Further as the standard is based on a 1-hour emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for an entire year (8,760 hours). Also, the limit is based on estimated ambient concentrations and not exposure concentrations. Exposure concentrations are typically lower than ambient concentrations because they reflect that people’s activities (e.g., work, school) remove them from their residential exposure locations for significant amounts of time. For these reasons, the EPA concludes that the emission limit is health protective (i.e., exposures will remain below the threshold values) and this conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4). Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA underestimated acute health risks in the evaluation of the risk of acute harm from short-term exposures by ignoring variability in short-term emissions. The commenter noted that the EPA calculated the 1hour emissions estimates for its modeling of acute harm by dividing the annual emissions level by 8,760 hours per year instead of using a default factor or emissions multiplier to account for higher-than-average short-term 97 See, e.g., Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 598 F.2d 62, 81 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that the phrase ‘ample margin of safety’ in the Clean Water Act’s toxic provisions required the EPA to protect against as yet unidentified risks to human health, including those ‘‘which research has not yet identified’’). E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES emissions. The commenter noted actual emissions over a 1-hour period will at times exceed the average hourly emissions level used in the modeling. The commenter asserted the EPA did not explain how this approach captures peak short-term emissions levels or adequately protects people from shortterm exposures at levels above the average. The commenter stated that the EPA has used emissions multipliers to scale up average hourly emissions in air dispersion modeling for other risk assessments.98 The commenter asserted that although emission multipliers in risk assessments still underestimate risk, these assessments show the EPA recognizes the need to use multipliers in assessing health risks from short-term emissions. The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA not to use an emissions multiplier for estimating risk for this rulemaking. The commenter also stated that the EPA’s calculation of 1-hour emissions assumed plants are operating (and generating emissions) 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The commenter noted that averaging hourly emissions over the full calendar year produces lower hourly emissions than if the EPA had used each plant’s actual operating hours. The EPA has information about each plant’s operating hours and these data show many units are not operating over the full calendar year. By calculating the 1-hour emissions based on 8,760 operating hours, the commenter asserted the EPA underestimated the risks of acute exposures over shorter spans of time. The commenter stated that because the EPA used short-term emissions that are neither conservative nor realistic, the EPA cannot conclude the standard assures ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ The commenter stated that in two other 98 See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Ingredient Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; Proposed Rule, 77 FR 1268, 1279 (Jan. 9, 2012) (finalized at 79 FR 17340 (Mar. 27, 2014); see also National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 79 FR 60238, 60252 (Oct. 6, 2014) (applying ‘‘an emission adjustment factor’’ to ‘‘average annual hourly emission rates . . . to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations’’); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 78 FR 66108, 66122 (Nov. 4, 2013) (applying ‘‘a conservative default emissions multiplier of 10 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates’’ as part of EPA’s screening of ‘‘worstcase acute impacts’’); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, 76 FR 72770, 72785 (Nov. 25, 2011) (applying an ‘‘emissions multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 recent rulemakings, the EPA found information on short-term HCl emissions was insufficient to allow the EPA to evaluate ‘‘whether a chronic health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health concerns.’’ (75 FR 32031; 76 FR 25050). In these rulemakings, the commenter stated, the EPA did not proceed with risk-based standards due to the lack of this information. The commenter stated that the EPA is incorrectly proceeding with the proposed health-based standards without accounting for or quantifying peak short-term emissions. Response: The use of an emissions multiplier to convert annual emissions to peak 1-hour emissions (determination of peak emissions for comparison with 1-hour health benchmarks) for acute (short-term) risk calculations was not necessary for this analysis, because the HBEL determined for the category is being promulgated as a mass of HClequivalent emitted per hour. Similarly, plant hours of operation need not be considered because the HBEL determined for the category is an hourly limit. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule for BSCP, ‘‘To assure that no source emits more than the 250 tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 250 tpy (57 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)’’ (79 FR 75644). Similarly, for clay ceramics manufacturing, ‘‘to assure that no source emits more than the 600 tpy HClequivalent limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy (140 lb/ hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)’’ (79 FR 75661). The EPA concludes the risk analysis and subsequent standard meet an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ in accordance with the CAA. The proposed HBEL for the entire source category is based on an emissions level corresponding to a maximum noncancer HI of one at the highest impacted facility. All other facilities would have a lower risk than the highest risk facility. Further, as the standard is based on a 1-hour emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for an entire year (8,760 hours). Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s evaluation of acute health risks, stating that the approach is inadequate and does not assure standards are based on a safe health threshold and include ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ Specifically, the commenter expressed concern that the proposed HBEL are based on the chronic dose-response information and PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 not on thresholds for acute health risks. The commenter noted the EPA approximated exposures, used those estimates to develop HQ values, and concluded ‘‘there is low potential for acute risk’’ when the HQ values are less than or equal to one. If values above one were identified, then the EPA examined additional information to determine whether there was a potential for ‘‘significant acute risks’’ for those living near the facility. The commenter noted that the EPA did not explain why this method satisfies the CAA section 112(d)(4) requirement that health-based standards be set at a level that ensures ‘‘an amply margin of safety’’ for people living near the facility. The EPA’s evaluation is designed to determine whether any facilities pose ‘‘significant acute risks’’; however, the commenter stated that this is not the statutory standard, and such a determination would not signify that an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ is included. The commenter stated that for HF, the EPA’s evaluation identified numerous plants at which there were potential acute health risks. Specifically, the EPA found 23 BSCP facilities exceeded the HQ value for HF, with nearly half of those facilities exceeding the value by four- or five-fold. For the clay ceramics category, the EPA found that eight facilities exceeded the HQ value for HF. The additional analysis the EPA performed to determine whether these facilities posed ‘‘significant acute risks’’ did not rule out the possibility of such ‘‘significant acute risks.’’ For these facilities, the EPA focused its analysis on maximum offsite HQ values; however, the commenter noted that many of the maximum offsite HQ values exceed one, thereby indicating the potential for ‘‘significant acute risks’’ remained. The commenter asserted that the EPA provided no support for why values above one means there is no potential for ‘‘significant acute risks.’’ The commenter disagreed with the EPA’s assertion that there is no potential for ‘‘significant acute risks’’ because the risk assessment assumes there is a person present at the location and time where the maximum HQ value occurs and stated that relaxing conservative assumptions about exposure in individual instances is arbitrary and defeats the purpose of the evaluation. The EPA cannot pretend that the person is not present and ignore the potential for harm. The EPA’s statement that a facility is not likely to emit only HF similarly provides no assurance of safety. According to the commenter, the EPA relaxed an assumption in the model because the model predicted an outcome the EPA did not like. The E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations commenter stated the EPA provided no basis for its assertion that a facility is unlikely to emit only HF or explain why a combination of HF (for which the EPA found a potential for ‘‘significant acute risks’’), HCl, and Cl2 emissions would not still pose ‘‘significant acute risks.’’ The commenter stated that the EPA’s use of acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs) and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPGs) to assess acute risks cannot assure that exposure presents ‘‘no risk’’ of health effects at those concentrations. The AEGL and ERPG values were created for emergency exposure scenarios. The commenter stated that levels defined for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures’’ and ‘‘emergency’’ chemical releases or accidents are not appropriate for measuring acute exposure risk. According to the SAB, indicated ‘‘AEGL–2 and ERPG–2 values should never be used in residual risk assessments because they represent levels that if exceeded could cause serious or irreversible health effects.’’ 99 The commenter stated that because the AEGL and ERPG numbers would underestimate risk to the maximum exposed individual, AEGL and ERPG values do not indicate ‘‘safe’’ thresholds that protect health with ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ For these reasons, the commenter contends AEGL and ERPG values should not be used to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA’s acute assessment includes arbitrary decisionmaking and does not reflect an ample margin of safety. The EPA is not required to regulate based solely on the results of a conservative acute screening scenario which assumes that a person will be present at a specific location and during worst-case meteorological conditions. Rather, this initial screening scenario is used as a starting point in the assessment of the potential for acute effects. For HCl and Cl2, the acute REL values for the pollutants are not estimated to be exceeded even when using the screening scenario, and the acute REL for HF is estimated to be exceeded only by a factor of two for seven facilities using the screening scenario. The other cases of higher exceedances mentioned by the commenter are situations where the locations of the exceedances are on facility property and, therefore, not considered for public health. The acute REL is defined by CalEPA as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated 99 Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA’s Draft at 6. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 for a specified exposure duration. RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of uncertainty factors which are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties. Regarding the use of AEGL and ERPG values, the EPA does not rely exclusively upon these values for assessment of acute exposures. Rather, the EPA’s approach is to consider various acute health effect reference values, including the California REL, in assessing the potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays 100 for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e., occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. Because HCl, HF, and Cl2 all have 1-hour REL values, the maximum estimated 1-hour concentrations were compared to these values to assess the potential for acute health effects. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA’s risk analysis ignored exposures from emissions of HCl, HF, Cl2, and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints from units subject to the proposed work practice standards, including emissions during startup and shutdown, and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The commenter asserted that even though the EPA stated that the work practice standards are intended to minimize emissions, these sources are not included in the calculation of the CAA section 112(d)(4) standards, and exposures to emissions from these other 100 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and available on-line at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65503 sources will contribute to an individual’s cumulative health risks. The commenter asserted that the EPA does not know whether the proposed HBEL will provide ‘‘an ample margin of safety’’ once emissions from periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns are added to the levels of pollution permitted by the proposed standards. For this reason, the commenter stated that the proposed CAA section 112(d)(4) standards are unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter also stated that emissions during startup and shutdown are expected to be uncontrolled, because the EPA did not propose to require that BSCP and clay ceramics plants use APCD or other methods to reduce emissions (such as mandating the use of clean fuels) during these periods. The proposed work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not require control technology and, according to the commenter, are not anticipated to reduce emissions. Finally, the commenter stated that the only reason startup and shutdown periods and periodic and shuttle kilns are not subject to the proposed CAA section 112(d)(4) limits is because the EPA exempted them from CAA section 112(d). The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to exclude those emissions from the health analysis solely because the EPA proposed to regulate those sources of emissions under a different subsection of the CAA. The commenter argued all exposures contribute to the risk of harm, regardless of whether they are CAA section 112(d)-regulated emissions or section CAA 112(h)regulated emissions. Response: The EPA disagrees that emissions during periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns will exceed the numerical HBEL. Regarding the standards for periods of startup and shutdown, as noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and further documented in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291,101 temperature is the main factor affecting full production at BSCP plants. The kiln cars should be introduced into the kiln at a steadily increasing push rate to facilitate development of that specific kiln’s firing temperature profile. Since emissions are generated from the firing of the bricks and the fuel combusted, the EPA has concluded that the maximum magnitude of emissions will occur when all kiln cars have been 101 Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith Barnett, EPA. ‘‘Additional documents.’’ Dated June 25, 2015. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 65504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations loaded with the maximum number of bricks and the maximum amount of fuel is used. During startup, kiln operators will limit production until the kiln has heated enough to begin normal operation. This is the point whereby the standard transitions from a work practice to a numeric limit. The opposite process occurs during shutdown. Fuel use will decrease significantly so as to cool the kiln, and kiln operators will slow production to a stop. Since emissions will be lower below this point of maximum loading and fuel use, emissions will not rise above the emission limit for all pollutants, including the acid gas limits. The owner or operator of each kiln will be required to determine the startup production rate for the kiln. For kilns with an APCD, the owner or operator will determine the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. For kilns that, through compliance testing once the compliance date has been reached, have shown they are emitting under the emission limits and thus do not have an APCD, the owner or operator will determine the product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. The startup standards will be tied to the startup production rate never being exceeded until the kiln reaches the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD or the product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable. During shutdown, once the kiln falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD or the product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable, no additional product can be introduced. These temperature limits will be required to be included in the facility’s records and kept on site. Thus, for periods of startup and shutdown, the HBEL set for HCl, HF, and Cl2 will not be surpassed during startup and shutdown. In the case of sanitaryware shuttle kilns, the commenter is mistaken that we did not mandate the use of clean fuels. The rule does limit the fuels used to natural gas or equivalent, and also outlines work practice standards relative to temperature cycles and maintenance procedures designed to minimize HAP emissions (see Table 3 to subpart KKKKK). The use of clean fuels applies for all times the kiln is running, not just startup and shutdown. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that we are not requiring the use of clean fuels for startup and shutdown relative to the operation of shuttle kilns. The EPA also disagrees that just because the proposed work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 do not reflect the use of any control technology, they are not anticipated to reduce emissions. As the commenter has stated elsewhere, control technologies are not the only means of limiting emissions. Control of parameters such as fuel, operating temperature, combustion conditions, and throughput are also effective means of limiting emissions, and these are the types of parameters the EPA considered when finalizing the work practice standards for periodic and shuttle kilns. As discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 75662, CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. Section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA further defines the term ‘‘not feasible’’ in this context to apply when ‘‘the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations,’’ which is the case here. There are fewer BSCP periodic kilns and first-fire sanitaryware shuttle kilns compared to tunnel kilns, and they tend to be low-emitting sources compared to tunnel kilns,102 so their emissions will not cause an exceedance of the health threshold. The work practice standards we are finalizing will serve to ensure that emissions from these sources continue to remain low. Comment: One commenter stated that, to create standards that assure ‘‘an ample margin of safety,’’ the EPA is required to build a margin into the HBEL for exposures to HCl, HF, Cl2, and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints resulting from (a) exceedances of the HCl, HF, and Cl2 standards, (b) violations of the work practice standards applicable during startup and shutdown, and (c) exceedances of other standards (e.g., MACT standards for non-Hg HAP 102 For example, even assuming that lb/ton emissions are similar for BSCP periodic and tunnel kilns, a comparison of annual kiln design capacities (ton product/yr) for model BSCP periodic kilns and tunnel kilns indicates that annual capacities for periodic kilns are on average only 5 percent of annual capacities for tunnel kilns. (For the basis of this calculation, see the memorandum ‘‘Updated Inventory Database and Documentation for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Final Rule’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 and the memorandum ‘‘Final Rule: Documentation of Database and Responses to the 1997 Information Collection Request for Brick and Structural Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. A–99–30.) In addition, in the BSCP industry, there are currently 120 periodic kilns located at 15 facilities, compared to 168 tunnel kilns at 84 facilities. In the sanitaryware industry sector, there are currently five first-fire shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first-fire tunnel kilns. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 metals) that restrict pollutants with similar biological endpoints. The commenter also stated that estimating short-term emissions by averaging annual emissions does not reflect emissions spikes that occur during plant malfunctions or upsets. The commenter stated that malfunctions and upsets increase emissions and thereby pose increased health risks that the EPA must consider. The commenter stated that relevant chronic exposures include exposures from exceedances and violations and noted that many exceedances, such as those from malfunctions and upsets, are likely to contribute significant emissions that can elevate an individual’s total exposures over time. The commenter also stated that the EPA explains malfunction events can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation (79 FR 75626). The commenter stated that these emissions pose much higher shortterm risks and can accumulate and combine to increase public health impacts and risk and that guarding against the health risks of releases of large amounts of HF (for example) must be built into the HBEL through the margin of safety. The commenter stated that HF exhibits characteristics in some circumstances that can make it uniquely hazardous over large areas. For example, HF molecules may associate with one another (i.e., form larger molecules like H4F4, H6F6, H8F8) via hydrogen bonding and such molecules may form a cloud that is heavier than air, therefore less likely to disperse. The commenter stated that, by not accounting for exposures from exceedances, the EPA assumed that such exceedances will be zero and built in no additional protections in case exceedances do occur. The commenter claimed that there is no factual basis for assuming that 100 percent of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities will comply with each of the relevant emissions limits 100 percent of the time. Over the long term and across the population of regulated facilities, the commenter noted that it is predictable that a number of exceedances will occur at facilities. The commenter stated it is unlawful to ignore emissions and the resulting health risks from those exceedances and argued the additional risk from exceedances should not be ignored in risk assessments. The commenter stated that EPA regularly uses statistical methods and probability factors to assess health risk due to exceedances and to set clean air standards, and the EPA has data available to calculate representative factors to assess the health risk from E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations malfunctions or can collect information on major sources’ malfunction and violation histories.103 If the EPA needs more refined data regarding these emissions, the commenter suggested the EPA may request additional data from sources. The commenter stated that it is irrelevant that exceedances are a result of a failure to comply with the law when the EPA is setting CAA section 112(d)(4) standards, which must be set at a level that protects health. It does not matter to a person whether the pollution he or she is breathing is a result of a permitted or unpermitted release; the commenter argued the EPA cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that compliance with its standards is not perfect. Response: The HBEL was determined based on the assessment of acute affects at the worst-case facility with respect to meteorology and distance to receptor and is protective of most facilities even if they had SSM event emissions. Even for the worst-case facility, the SSM emissions event would need to be coincident with the worst-case meteorological conditions, which is not likely if SSM events are not frequent. For chronic risk, SSM emissions are not significant compared to the HBEL level, and most facilities are well below an HI of one with emissions at the HBEL level. The commenter is correct that the EPA did not include malfunctions and upsets emissions in setting emissions limits. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75626), malfunctions ‘‘are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment.’’ The preamble also stated that ‘‘accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these reasons, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘reasonably’ foreseeable.’’ It should also be noted that sources cannot conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction (40 CFR 63.8445(e) and 40 CFR 63.8595(d)) and there are no continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) in place in the BSCP industry. 103 See, e.g., EPA, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), www.epa.gov/echo. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 The EPA disagrees that it is required to evaluate the ample margin of safety provided by a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard based on the level of emissions that could occur during an exceedance of the standard caused by a malfunction or any other cause. When the EPA establishes a standard under CAA section 112(d)(4), the EPA evaluates the ample margin of safety based on what sources will emit when they are meeting the standard (which applies at all times including periods of malfunction) and does not include some additional margin of safety to compensate for periods of time that sources may violate the standard. This is consistent with how the EPA evaluates standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) (in that the EPA’s evaluation of the ample margin of safety under that review looks at the emissions allowed under the standard, not emissions that might occur when the standard is exceeded). Regarding the comment that the standard is not health protective for emissions of HF, the proposed rule determined the HCl equivalent emissions for HF by the ratio of the RfC value for each pollutant, such that a 250 tpy emission of HCl is equivalent to 175 tpy emissions of HF. By performing a risk analysis for each facility/kiln, the EPA demonstrated that these emissions limits are protective of both chronic and acute risks. Regarding the comment that HF exhibits release characteristics that may make it uniquely hazardous over large areas, the EPA notes that the commenter did not include data or information supporting their assertion that plumes of acid gases from BSCP facilities could become heavier than air. The commenter’s example case of the formation of dense clouds of acid gases is from studies performed on the vaporization of liquefied gaseous fuels from spills, and the commenter did not explain how this scenario is relevant to the emission of acid gases formed in BSCP kilns. In the absence of evidence suggesting that clouds of dense gases are formed from BSCP facilities, and without a suggested alternate modeling methodology, the EPA used its preferred model AERMOD for dispersion for BSCP facilities. 7. Other Issues Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must account for the variability in emissions measured by compliance testing to measure whether each plant’s emissions meet the HBEL because that testing does not capture a source’s variance in emissions performance over time. The commenter noted that the EPA already recognizes this fact for PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65505 stack tests for technology-based standards. The EPA has stated that it lacks a high degree of confidence that stack tests capture variation in emissions over time, and the commenter noted that as a result of this variance, it can be expected that the compliance tests would not be accurate. The commenter asserted that if the EPA believes that measurement variability needs to be corrected for, then it is irrational and arbitrary to correct for it with one set of standards (MACT standards) and not another (healthbased standards), when they both rely upon emissions data from stack tests. The commenter noted that the EPA’s proposal to account for variability for MACT standards but not for compliance with the HBEL would result in weaker and less-protective standards in both cases. Response: Variability in emissions would not have a significant impact on the estimated risks associated with the HBEL. For chronic exposures and risks, the estimates are based on long-term (annual) emissions, so short-term emissions variability would not impact the estimates of chronic risks as long as the annual emissions, on average, do not exceed the limit. For acute exposures and risks, short-term emissions variability that causes emissions to exceed the 1-hour HBEL would increase the potential for acute health effects, but the likelihood of such effects is low because the emissions variability would have to occur at the small number of facilities we estimated as having the highest acute HQs based on the emissions limits, and the emissions variability would have to coincide with worst-case meteorological conditions even at those facilities to result in acute HQs higher than those we estimated based on the HBEL. Most facilities have acute HQ estimates significantly below one, so short-term emissions variability would have to be high (approximately 60 percent higher for the median facility) for the estimated HQs to approach a value of one. The EPA also notes that the HBEL was not established using emissions data from stack tests. Therefore, there was no need to account for variability in setting the HBEL as was done for the Hg and non-Hg HAP metals standards. Instead, the standard was established at a conservative level to ensure that the HQs remain below one for all facilities. The EPA agrees that there would be variability in the test results used to demonstrate compliance with the rule, but as already noted in this response, short-term emissions variability would have to be high for the estimated HQs to approach a value of one. In addition, E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65506 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations variability is not considered when comparing compliance testing results to any other emissions limit, so it would be inconsistent for the EPA to require owners and operators to adjust their test results before comparing those results to the HBEL. Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should require fence-line ambient air quality monitoring that measures multiple pollutants in realtime or near real-time to ensure that people are not being exposed to ambient pollutant concentrations that exceed the proposed HBEL. The commenter recommended the EPA also require realtime public reporting of the monitoring data. In addition, the commenter suggested that the EPA should require facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for agency review and public comment. These requirements would ensure concerned community members have the ability to review and recommend improvements to monitoring plans before they are implemented and would enable the EPA to consider community concerns when deciding whether to approve a plan. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Because stack emissions can travel for long distances and are at heights above where a fence-line monitors would measure, it is inappropriate to use fence-line monitoring for stack emissions. Fenceline monitoring is performed for fugitive emissions (see discussion of fence-line monitoring use on fugitive emissions at 79 FR 36919, Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule). In response to the comment that the EPA should require all facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for agency review and public comment, the EPA notes that these requirements are indeed in the rule, as facilities are required to submit monitoring plans, data and corrective actions for the regulatory agency review. However, in most cases, these submissions are required to be sent to the delegated authority, and the follow-up to that review, is left to the discretion of the delegated authority. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 1. MACT Floors a. Sources in MACT Floor Pool One commenter stated that the DC Circuit held that the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP published on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690) violated the CAA in a number of ways (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 The court held that, in setting MACT floors for brick tunnel kilns, the EPA’s exclusion of kilns employing non-DLA controls from its ranking and identification of the best performing sources was unlawful because CAA section 112(d)(3) ‘‘requires floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the lowest emission levels).’’ Id. In addition, the court recognized that factors other than pollution control technology affect performance (e.g., clay type), and the EPA cannot ignore such factors, even where the EPA finds that floors based on those factors would be unachievable. The commenter noted that the EPA is once again excluding best performing sources from its floor analysis and basing floors on a group of kilns using the EPA’s preferred control technologies, in contravention of the holding of Sierra Club, which is the decision to which this rulemaking is intended to be a response. In the proposed rule, prior to ranking the best performing sources for the BSCP tunnel kiln floors for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for existing and new sources, the EPA removed all kilns without a FF-based APCD. Once removed, those kilns were not included in the ranking of best performing sources, and hence they were not considered for inclusion among the best performing 12 percent of sources (for the existing source floor) or the best controlled similar source (for the new source floor). The commenter asserted that the agency’s reprisal of a floor approach that the DC Circuit has already rejected repeatedly is not just unlawful, but amounts to contempt for the court’s authority. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the EPA’s proposed approach to calculating PM surrogate MACT floors for kilns was illegal in that it impermissibly excluded certain kilns. However, at proposal, we asked for comment on this approach and requested additional data to support this approach, and we did not receive any such additional data. In addition, some of the test data for sources with FF-based APCD could not be used in the final rulemaking because it was discovered that the testing was not carried out in accordance with the appropriate test method. Therefore, we can no longer assert that we have emissions data for all BSCP kilns with FF-based APCD. Thus, the EPA did not use the approach challenged by the commenter to establish the MACT floors in the final rule. The EPA has amended the approach to developing PM surrogate MACT floors for reasons explained in section PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 IV.A.1 of this preamble, so these comments are now moot. However, the EPA still believes the approach to identify the best performing sources has merit. When the EPA has data on every single controlled source in the category, and these data support that these sources are the best performing, then basing the MACT floor on the top 12 percent of the total number of sources is appropriate. b. Equivalent Limits Comment: One commenter stated that, in addition to the lb/ton MACT floors for emissions of Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals), the EPA developed two ‘‘equivalent limits.’’ The EPA used its ranking of the sources based on their ‘‘average’’ lb/ton emissions to identify the best performing source or sources for the floor pool. To develop the PM and Hg ‘‘equivalent’’ limits, the EPA took the best performing source or sources the EPA had selected and retrieved data on those sources’ emission performance as measured by gr/dscf at 7-percent O2 for PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. For nonHg HAP metals, the EPA proposed to set an additional standard that would limit the pounds of non-Hg HAP metals emitted per hour. For this additional limit, the EPA again used the ranking of the sources based on their ‘‘average’’ lb/ ton emissions and also (without any explanation) no longer used PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals, but instead set the limit in terms of total non-Hg HAP metals. The commenter stated that the EPA acknowledged that the available data on non-Hg HAP metals is incomplete, so to develop this proposed limit, the EPA simply took the final pounds of PM per ton of fired product floor limit that it had derived and applied a set of ‘‘conversion factors’’ it invented to put that standard in terms of pounds of non-Hg HAP metal emissions per hour. The commenter stated the EPA used completely different ‘‘conversion’’ methodologies for the new and existing standards because the EPA lacks even the limited data it used for the existing source methodology on new sources. The commenter stated the ‘‘equivalent’’ limits the EPA proposed are not ‘‘equivalent’’ and Congress did not give the EPA the authority to set multiple limits and allow sources to comply with whichever limit they choose. The commenter stated the EPA’s use of different measures of performance to identify the top sources on the one hand and to evaluate their performance on the other is inconsistent, irrational, and unexplained; the same metric should E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations apply for purposes of identifying the best performers and identifying those sources’ actual performance. The commenter also stated the EPA did not use the best performing 12 percent of existing sources ‘‘for which the Administrator has emissions information’’ for the non-Hg HAP metals lb/hr limit. Another commenter supported the EPA’s inclusion of multiple formats for both PM/non-Hg HAP metals and Hg. The commenter stated that the inclusion of each of these formats, as well as the inclusion of small and large kiln subcategories, provides needed flexibility to numerous BSCP facilities, including a large number of small businesses, to find that standard that best suits their operations while still ensuring that the CAA requirements are met. The commenter asserted that the inclusion of three alternate compliance formats is so critical to the development of this standard that the EPA must repropose this rule if it maintains numeric limits but deletes any of these alternative formats for the final rule. Response: The EPA appreciates all comments regarding the alternative limits. The EPA is retaining the alternative limits in the final rule but is revising the ranking methodology as described in section IV.A.2 of this preamble. For the final rule, the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data, and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for that unit of measurement. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES c. Oxygen Correction Comment: One commenter stated, regarding the concentration compliance limits, that the use of the equation to correct measured concentrations to 7percent O2 could be problematic when used to correct concentrations measured in stacks with high O2 content, which is typical of the brick industry. The commenter stated because the correction term is in the denominator of the equation for the correction to 7percent O2, the overall correction factor increases exponentially as O2 concentrations approach 20.9 percent. As a result, any variances in the O2 measurement are greatly magnified in the correction factor for kilns with high stack O2 content. The commenter suggested that the correction factor should be the average O2 content represented in the respective floors, 17percent O2 (based on a range of O2 stack contents for BSCP kilns from 13 to 20 percent). The commenter asserted that the correction to an average of 17- VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 percent will minimize the artificial inflation of the results for the industry. Response: The EPA evaluated the O2 content of the run-by-run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns as described in section IV.A.1 of this preamble and agrees that correcting concentration data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7-percent, as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns’ operating conditions and would not artificially inflate the values. For the final rule, the EPA has taken the O2 percent analysis into consideration and revised the equivalent concentration based limits to be developed from 17percent O2-corrected concentration data. 2. Startup and Shutdown Comment: Numerous commenters supported the use of work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown but asserted that the startup and shutdown procedures listed in the proposed rule cannot be met by all BSCP kilns and must be modified. Commenters requested that the final language allow a more basic construct for the work practice requirements in the final rule and require facilities to develop site-specific temperatures as part of their permitting process. Multiple commenters specifically stated that the requirement for an exhaust temperature of 400 °F at startup is not workable because the kiln exhaust temperature in some kilns never reaches 400 °F. Commenters also noted that kilns must have product at startup. Therefore, commenters requested that the startup provisions apply to the introduction, or charging, of new brick or structural clay product through a kiln and not impact the initial staging of kiln cars in a kiln before start-up. Commenters suggested revisions to the proposed language to ‘‘not put any bricks into the kiln’’ below specified temperatures. Multiple commenters agreed with the language that requires a kiln to vent to an APCD before the exhaust gas reaches 400 °F, because it can vent at any time up to that temperature. Multiple commenters stated that for a controlled kiln, it is acceptable to require that no new product is allowed to be introduced to the controlled kiln until the kiln is vented to an APCD. One commenter stated that a feasible work practice standard would be for the exhaust gases to be vented through the APCD during the startup process, with the reagent feed started on an intermittent basis during this period and then brought up to full feed rate once the exhaust temperature has reached the normal operating temperature range. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65507 A few commenters also requested specific revisions to the production requirements for periods of shutdown. One commenter stated that during shutdown, a kiln operator would not be pushing any cars in the kiln after reaching a range of 250 to 300 °F in the exhaust stack (depending on the type of kiln and its operating parameters). The commenter asked that a minimum operating range be allowed during a shutdown cycle. Another commenter noted that a limitation for a kiln to cease charging in new product before a kiln stops venting to an APCD may be a reasonable alternative to temperature requirements. Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and additional information received following proposal as described in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. As a result, the EPA has revised the work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns to provide requirements that are more representative of the best performing kilns. Specifically, instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable. The final shutdown standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable. C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 1. Authority Comment: Two commenters argued that the EPA has no legal authority to finalize major source NESHAP for the ceramic tile manufacturing industry 104 104 There are three distinct sectors within the clay ceramics manufacturing industry: ceramic floor tile manufacturing, ceramic wall tile manufacturing, and sanitaryware manufacturing. These comments E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM Continued 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 65508 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations because there are currently no existing major sources in that industry sector that will be subject to the standards. Specifically, they argued that CAA section 112(d)(1) only provides the EPA authority to regulate a category or subcategory if it has major sources. Commenters contended that, here, ceramic tile manufacturing facilities that emit HAP have all become synthetic area sources and so are subject to the ‘‘area source’’ NESHAP regulation. Thus, they argue, the law does not allow the EPA to proceed with a major source standard for these subcategories. Both commenters also stated that the CAA does not give the EPA the authority to regulate ‘‘just-in-case’’ there is a major source in the future, and the EPA may only regulate categories and subcategories that currently have major sources in them. One commenter stated that the EPA should not devote resources to finalizing these regulations when those regulations would apply to no one, and, thus, will have no environmental benefits. The commenter stated that it is the EPA’s duty to responsibly steward the public resources with which it has been entrusted to use in fulfillment of its mission, and using these resources to issue regulations that will regulate no one fails to satisfy that responsibility. Issuing such regulations is expensive for the regulated community and has the real potential to create unintended, inaccurate impressions of the industry, its emissions and its products. It serves no public purpose, and will impose short and long term costs on the EPA, and long term costs on delegated states as an unfunded mandate and on the tile manufacturing industry, 79 FR 75671 (Dec. 18, 2014). The commenter argued that, because the EPA’s promulgation of standards for the ceramic tile industry is not authorized by the CAA, finalizing such standards would violate Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution because it is an attempt by the EPA to rewrite portions of the CAA when the power to enact laws is reserved to Congress. The commenter stated that Congress provided clear instructions to the EPA, in the unambiguous numerical definition of ‘‘major source,’’ as to which industry categories or subcategories could be regulated by major source NESHAP standards. The commenter noted that the Supreme Court very recently stated: ‘‘An agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute address the regulation of HAP emissions from ceramic floor tile manufacturing and ceramic wall tile manufacturing. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 should operate.’’ Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014). Further, the Court stated: ‘‘We are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as EPA embarks on a multiyear voyage of discovery.’’ 134 S.Ct. at 2446. The commenter asserted that the Supreme Court’s concerns in the UARG case are instructive here because, as in the UARG case, the statute creates unambiguous numeric thresholds defining a major source: the emission of 10 tpy any one HAP or the emission of 25 tpy in the aggregate of all HAP, 42 U.S.C. 9612(a)(l). The commenter contended that the Supreme Court supported the commenter’s position when it stated that ‘‘[i]t is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous than the precise numerical thresholds . . .’’ Id. at 2445. The commenter argued that the Sierra Club consent decree is irrelevant to the EPA’s statutory authority and its limitations. The consent decree entered in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012) (hereafter the ‘‘consent decree’’) is germane to the timing of this rulemaking, but it does not, and legally could not, expand CAA section 112(d) to grant the EPA legal authority to regulate on the just-in-case basis the EPA has proposed. The withdrawal of the proposed NESHAP does not preclude the EPA from meeting its statutory obligations, fulfilling the requirements of the consent decree, and continuing its existing precedent. The EPA may issue final NESHAP for those subcategories within this category in which a major source exists. The ceramic tile manufacturing industry is not among them. The commenter argued that the proposed NESHAP would, if finalized as proposed, be arbitrary and capricious because the proposed NESHAP is based on hypothetical or imaginary manufacturing and air emissions control strategies, flawed data from an invalidated stack test method, and on statistically created emissions data. The EPA even proposed in places not to use actual emissions data. According to the commenter, the EPA’s proposal, if finalized, would create an economic hurdle so high that no one in the industry would expand their business to the point of becoming a NESHAP major source. Further, a substantial number of these entities meet the definition of a ‘‘small business’’ as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The result of this regulation, if finalized, would be to hand non-market-based economic advantages to foreign producers to grow their presence in the U.S. market by importing their PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 competing ceramic tile. Financing of capital projects will be adversely affected by the costs imposed by the NESHAP, further raising the economic hurdle. Major source domestic manufacturing capacity will not be built, and the jobs and tax base that go along with that capacity will not be created. Response: Under CAA section 112(c)(1), the EPA first lists all categories and subcategories of major sources. It is at this first step that the EPA determines that a given category or subcategory contains major sources of HAP. Then, the EPA sets standards for those listed categories and source categories. Both CAA section 112(c)(2) and CAA section 112(d)(1) make clear that the EPA is to regulate all listed categories and subcategories. As CAA section 112(c)(2) states: ‘‘For the categories and subcategories the Administrator lists, the Administrator shall establish standards . . .’’ As CAA section 112(d)(1) states: ‘‘The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing emissions standards for each category and subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for regulation pursuant to subsection (c) of this section . . .’’ In short, once a category or subcategory of major sources is listed under CAA section 112(c), it must be regulated. If commenters believe that the major source ceramic tile subcategories should not be regulated, they may seek to delete these subcategories from the list, which is a process that Congress established in CAA section 112(c)(9) and which the DC Circuit has held is the EPA’s sole authority for removing a listed category or subcategory from the list. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 581–583 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In interpreting the relevant provisions here, the EPA is mindful of the recent and longstanding instructions from the Supreme Court that statutory provisions must be read to further rather than undermine Congress’s statutory intent. King v. Burwell, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4248, *29 (2015)(‘‘We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.’’)(citing and quoting New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419–420, 93 S. Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1973)); E.I. Du Pont De Nemours v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 132 (1977)(‘‘We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the purposes for which it has acted.’’)(quoting Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 777 (1968)). In this context, it is unreasonable to read E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations CAA section 112(d)(1) as limiting the EPA’s authority to set standards that will be applicable to the highest emitting sources in a category or subcategory and creating a loophole by which major sources can evade regulation. Without suggesting that the following is the commenters’ intent, the effect of the commenters’ interpretation of CAA section 112 would be that major sources would be able to evade regulation by, first, becoming synthetic area sources during the rulemaking process (which, under the commenters’ view, would preclude the EPA from finalizing standards for major sources) and then, after the EPA withdraws the proposed standards, reconverting to be major sources and thus not subject to any standard. Consideration of this scenario is particularly appropriate in the circumstances here, because there are standards in place for area sources in the ceramic tile subcategories. It is not reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to create a structure where an area source (whether a natural area source or a synthetic area source) has an incentive to increase emissions to become a major source, and by doing so is no longer subject to emissions limitations. Further, the issue of whether there are major sources in the ceramic tile subcategories is not as clear as the commenters presume. Even if, as the commenters contend, all of the existing major sources in these subcategories have successfully completed the process of becoming synthetic area sources, then these sources are not subject to the requirements imposed on major sources but that does not equate to a conclusion that they are no longer major sources in any respect. The EPA’s view is that synthetic area sources, though subject to area source requirements rather than major source requirements, are still major sources in certain respects. For example, synthetic area sources are considered to be major sources when the EPA identifies the best performing major sources as part of a MACT floor calculation under CAA section 112(d). Further, CAA section 112(a)(1) defines a major source as ‘‘any 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 per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.’’ The reference to a source’s ‘‘potential to emit considering controls’’ in this definition allows the interpretation that a source’s potential to emit before and after controls is VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be considered within the meaning of this definition. With respect to the commenter’s argument that CAA section 112 does not authorize ‘‘just in case’’ regulation, that is both not correct and off point. First, CAA section 112 clearly provides that the EPA will set standards for new sources in the listed categories and subcategories notwithstanding that the EPA can never know whether there will actually be any new sources. As required under CAA section 112, the EPA establishes new source standards ‘‘just in case’’ (to use commenter’s phrasing) new sources come into existence. Second, as discussed above, it is reasonable for the EPA to promulgate major source standards where, as here, there are synthetic area sources that could revert to major sources just in case that happens. With respect to the commenters’ argument that it is a poor use of agency resources for the EPA to finalize standards for the ceramic tile subcategories, the EPA has considered whether it is better to complete the current rulemaking with respect to the ceramic tile subcategories (and have them in place in the event that there are new major sources or a synthetic area source reverts to major source status) or to take no action now and re-do this rulemaking with respect to these subcategories in the event that there are major sources in the future. The EPA’s conclusion is that, having gotten this far along in the rulemaking process, it is a better use of agency resources to finalize requirements for the ceramic tile subcategories now. Given the options, finalizing these requirements in this rulemaking requires only a modest amount of additional resources, and is a much more efficient use of agency resources than restarting and repeating the rulemaking process at some point in the future. Even if one considers that there may not be any major sources that become subject to these requirements and that such a rulemaking might not ever be done, the EPA’s judgment is still that it is more efficient and a more costeffective use of agency resources to finalize these requirements now. Finally, on the issue of how likely it is that major sources will be built in the future, the EPA notes that the commenters’ own arguments suggest they will be. Specifically, the commenters stated that having a major source standard in place will dissuade companies from expanding small facilities into major sources and will impede financing for new major sources. The premise of such a comment is that, in the absence of a standard, PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65509 there will be such expansions and new major sources. The document ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule—Summary of Public Comments and Responses’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0290 addresses additional comments on this topic. Comment: According to one commenter, the EPA failed to demonstrate that the benefits of this proposed arbitrary and capricious NESHAP justify the costs. As stated in Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ issued by President Obama on January 18, 2011 to reaffirm Executive Order 12866, ‘‘[e]ach agency must . . . propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.’’ The preamble to the proposed NESHAP provides cost information (which the commenter noted elsewhere is erroneous) but did not discuss the benefits. The EPA only articulated the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. With respect to costs, the EPA’s cost analysis failed to account for costs to the agency and delegated states to promulgate and implement the regulations. There are no benefits to justify any of these costs. Further, ‘‘[i]n deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.’’ The EPA did not assess the alternative of not regulating—a path that would have exactly the same result, as there are no major sources to be regulated or not regulated. Therefore, the commenter stated that the EPA failed to meet its burden; the proposed NESHAP does not have benefits justifying its costs, and therefore such a regulation cannot be adopted. Response: We disagree with the commenter. First, CAA section 112 clearly states that the EPA is obligated to regulate emissions of HAP from listed source categories. There is no benefits test in the statutory requirement. The language in Executive Order 12866 does not supersede a clear legal requirement in the CAA. Second, because there are no major sources that will be regulated by this rule at the present time, there will be no implementation costs for the rule. If at a later date a major source is constructed, or a non-major source becomes major, then there will be implementation costs, but this rule will result in emission reduction requirements compared to the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of a rule. Therefore, at the point E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations where this rule actually results in costs, it will also have corresponding benefits. In the absence of any current major sources that will be covered by this rule, we simply cannot calculate the benefits. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 2. MACT Floors Comment: One commenter disagreed with the inclusion of emissions data from Kohler’s South Carolina facility tunnel kiln with the wet scrubber in the sanitaryware tunnel kiln existing source data pool for MACT floor determination. The commenter stated that Kohler installed a new tunnel kiln at the South Carolina facility in 2005 under the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated in 2003, which, according to the commenter, required the installation of APCD on any new firstfire tunnel kilns to meet the HF and HCl emission limitations. The APCD that Kohler installed, a wet scrubber, was written into the facility’s air permit at the time, and so its use at that time was federally enforceable. The court vacated the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in 2007, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control revised the facility’s air permit in March 2009, removing any reference to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and any requirement to operate the scrubber. Kohler then permanently shut down the scrubber in March 2009, though they continued to operate the tunnel kiln per permit requirements. Due to cost considerations, the scrubber was abandoned in place and not demolished/removed. The commenter noted that, when the EPA issued the information collection request (ICR) for clay ceramics emissions test data in 2010, the EPA required that Kohler make operational that wet scrubber for emissions testing of that tunnel kiln, even though the APCD was not listed in any permit nor required under any rule and had not been operated in 17 months. Initially, Kohler agreed to test the kiln as an existing source per operational requirements in the facility’s air permit (i.e., without the wet scrubber). However, the EPA demanded that Kohler restart and operate the abandoned scrubber during the kiln’s emissions testing. The commenter noted that Kohler cooperated with the EPA and tested emissions with the scrubber operating, but the scrubber was immediately shut down after testing. This scrubber has operated for a total of 1 week in the past 6 years, and that short period of operation was only to comply with the EPA’s ICR testing demand. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 The commenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority require operation of any permitted source for emissions testing under rulemaking and ICR protocol. The commenter agreed with the EPA that the ‘‘kiln’’ in question is an existing source but disagreed that the non-operating wet scrubber qualifies as part of an existing source. The commenter contended that the EPA is arbitrarily penalizing Kohler for not spending the money to demolish and remove the wet scrubber back in 2009 when it was removed from the facility’s air permit. The commenter asserted that the test data from the wet scrubber are not representative of any existing source and were not actually achieved in practice over time. Therefore, using the test data in the MACT floor analysis is inconsistent with the EPA’s expressed intent to determine MACT floors for existing sources based on the average emissions actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources with consideration for variability in emissions over time. The commenter asserted that all emissions data from the wet scrubber should be excluded from the existing source data pool for MACT floor analysis, and the existing source floors should be recalculated for the remaining existing sources. Response: Data from the APCD the commenter refers to was considered in developing both the new and existing MACT floors for sanitaryware kilns. As stated by the commenter, the APCD was installed to comply with the previously promulgated Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and thus was an available data point for collection through the CAA section 114 data collection process for this rulemaking. Because this source had an operational APCD (even though it was not being operated), we believe that testing with the APCD operating would be most representative of the source’s best performance as defined in the CAA. Having collected the emissions data for the source with the APCD operating, the EPA considered the data consistent with section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, under which the Administrator is required to calculate ‘‘the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.’’ Since it is appropriate to include the data in the database available to determine MACT floors, it is appropriate to use these data in floor calculations, if it is actually part of the best performing facilities. We note, PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 however, that the data from this device was only significant for the existing source dioxin/furan MACT floor, for reasons that are dependent on each regulated pollutant and discussed as follows. For both new and existing PM MACT floors, the final limit was unaffected by use of these data, since the data from the APCD was not ranked in the top five sources with data. For both new and existing Hg MACT floors, the data from the APCD were not ranked because the data were invalidated. The data were removed from the dataset because of errors in the analytical procedures surrounding the digestion process as dictated by Method 29. See Section 4.1: Analytical discrepancy of the Test Report ‘‘Kohler Co., Spartanburg, SC: Tunnel Kilns and Glaze Spray Booths 08/11–17/2010 Stack Test,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0290–0069. For dioxin/furan, the data from the APCD are in the top five but is not the best performing unit based on the dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking. (Note the units of measure for dioxin/furan ranking have changed from the proposed ng/dscm at 7-percent O2 to ng/ kg.) For the existing source floor, the result of the calculation of the best performing five sources is 3.3 ng/kg with the data point, and would have been 4.0 ng/kg without the data point, which we consider a nominal difference. The difference does not result in any source having to add controls. The calculation of the new source floor was not affected by the data from the APCD because, as stated above, the source was not the best performing unit, and the new source floor is based on the best performing unit. Comment: Three commenters questioned EPA’s decision to propose the dioxin/furan emission limits for ceramic tile manufacturing and sanitaryware manufacturing in concentration format only. Two commenters stated that the final dioxin/ furan standards should provide the option to comply with a limitation expressed in units of nanograms per milligram of tile produced, in addition to or in lieu of the proposed standard stated in ng/dscm. A mass-based production-related standard effectively removed the issues around O2 correction created by use of a standard based only on concentration. Further, the commenters asserted that it is a more universally appropriate adjustment for comparison of emissions from large kilns having high air flow rates to emissions from small kilns with low air volumes. The third commenter agreed and noted that the proposed E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES limits for PM and Hg are expressed as lb/ton fired product. The commenter asked EPA to explain how the concentration format for the emission limit is more appropriate for dioxins/ furans than a mass throughput limit. If it is not, the commenter suggested using a mass throughput format for the dioxin/furan emission limit. Response: The dioxin/furan limits provided in the final rule for clay ceramics are in units of ng TEQ/kg of throughput fired or processed. The EPA agrees that this change in format eliminates the questions surrounding the O2 correction for concentration values and is more consistent with the other units of measure provided in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. To demonstrate compliance with the limits, the owner or operator will determine the mass TEQ for each test run (using the toxic equivalency factors in Table 5 to subpart KKKKK), divide the mass TEQ by the production rate during the test run, and average the test runs. The production-based dioxin/furan limits are provided in lieu of the proposed concentration limits. The compliance flexibility provided to the BSCP Manufacturing source category (including alternative compliance options for PM and Hg) was solely related to concerns under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), specifically reducing the regulatory burden of the numerous small entities in the BSCP category. There are no small businesses expected to be subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, so the EPA determined that no additional compliance flexibility was necessary or warranted for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category. 3. Startup and Shutdown Comment: One commenter challenged the proposed startup and shutdown regulations for ceramic tile manufacturing. The commenter asserted that these standards are based conceptually on the desire to minimize the time during which ceramic tile manufacturing process units operate in a temperature range that is ‘‘conducive’’ to the formation of new dioxins/furans (i.e., 200–450 degrees Celsius). The commenter stated that this concern is moot because there are no new dioxins/ furans formed in the ceramic tile industry sector, based on the emissions data the EPA proposed to use to set MACT floors for ceramic tile sources and on the fact that ceramic tile dioxin/ furan congener profiles are different from the profile of the dioxins/furans created as a product of combustion. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 The commenter also challenged the EPA’s startup and shutdown proposal for spray dryers relative to dioxins/ furans. The input to the spray dryer experiences no more than 212 °F because the operational purpose of the spray dryer is to cause the excess moisture suspended or attached to the ball clay matrix to evaporate. If any spray dryer operating temperature is relevant to the EPA’s concern about temperatures in a spray dryer conducive to dioxin/furan formation, this is the correct focus. For ceramic tile floor tile and wall tile roller kilns, the commenter stated that the proposed temperature requirements for startup and shutdown reflect good kiln production practices; therefore, the proposed startup and shutdown standards are unnecessary. The commenter noted that the standards are based only on data from the BSCP subcategory, and the proposed temperatures are not appropriate for all sources. For example, ceramic tile dryers uniformly operate below 400 °F, so product could never be introduced to a tile dryer. The commenter also noted that the startup provisions require startup of APCD at 400 °F. However, ceramic tile dryers do not have APCD because they burn only natural gas, their normal operating temperature is less than 400 °F, and their resulting emissions are minimal. For these reasons, the proposal effectively constitutes a ban on the operation of tile dryers. If tile dryers are not an available manufacturing process, ceramic tile manufacturing as it is currently conducted in the United States would effectively cease at major sources. The commenter stated that the EPA lacks the legal authority to implement a de facto shut down of major sources, or to bar the possibility of the proposal of a major source, in this industry. For all the above reasons, the commenter asserted that the EPA must withdraw the startup and shutdown proposal from any final NESHAP for this subcategory. The commenter contended that, as proposed, these standards are arbitrary and capricious. Response: The CAA requires that NESHAP emissions limitations under section 112 must apply continuously, including during periods of startup and shutdown. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown; therefore, owners and operators would be unable to demonstrate compliance with the final numeric MACT standards during those periods. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for periods of PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65511 startup or shutdown to ensure that the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP includes continuous CAA section 112compliant standards. The commenter is correct that the specific startup and shutdown work practice standards proposed were based on information from the BSCP industry. In absence of any data on specific startup and shutdown procedures from the clay ceramics CAA section 114 survey, the EPA used the only data available for a similar industry. The EPA has not received any additional information from clay ceramics manufacturers on specific procedures, and in light of that lack of data, the EPA maintains that the less prescriptive startup and shutdown work practices being finalized for the BSCP industry are appropriate for the clay ceramics industry. First, one of the commenter’s main points is that the specific temperatures that were proposed are not appropriate for all the types of units to which the standards were proposed to apply, which is consistent with comments received on the BSCP proposal. Second, the commenter did note that the proposed standards reflect good kiln production practices for one type of process unit for which the specific temperature was appropriate. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards that are based on best practices but are less prescriptive than the proposed standards. As a final note, the EPA is clarifying in this response that the startup and shutdown standards are not intended to minimize only emissions of dioxins/ furans. Instead, the standards are intended to minimize emissions of all pollutants by limiting the amount of throughput being processed before the unit reaches full production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the APCD, if applicable. In addition, the proposed startup and shutdown work practice requirements did not require the use of an APCD, nor do the final standards. The standards only specify the requirements for routing exhaust to an APCD if one is present. The EPA has reviewed the language in the final rule to ensure the standards are clear. VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts? Table 8 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions reductions for existing sources under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations costs include the costs of installing APCD as well as the costs for the testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate compliance. TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a [2011 dollars] Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy) Industry Capital BSCP ......................................................... Clay Ceramics ........................................... Annual $64.6 0.267 HF $24.6 0.0924 344 0 HCl Cl2 22.1 0 Non-Hg HAP metals b 2.04 0 7.08 0 Hg 0.0733 0 PM2.5 c PM 643 0 SO2 309 0 205 0 a Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring. antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium. = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. b Includes c PM 2.5 The nationwide capital and annual costs of the APCD, testing, and monitoring needed to comply with the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are expected to total $64.6 million and $24.6 million, respectively (2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP emissions reductions achieved under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are expected to total 375 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the technical memoranda titled ‘‘Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP’’ and ‘‘Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, these facilities are expected to incur $92,400 annually in monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate compliance with the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. These costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled, ‘‘Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290. There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The five facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, which means that no costs or emissions reductions are expected for tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. B. What are the secondary impacts? Table 9 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for existing sources under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a Secondary air emissions (tpy) Industry PM BSCP ................................. Clay Ceramics ................... asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES a PM2.5 3.40 0 CO 1.14 0 NOX 5.74 0 SO2 45.6 0 CO2 133 0 27,900 0 Energy impacts (MMBtu/yr) Solid waste impacts (tpy) 461,000 0 5,210 0 CO = carbon monoxide; CO2 = carbon dioxide; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year. The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP include secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to meet the promulgated limits (i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the APCD, and solid waste impacts consist of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste (not reused or recycled). Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the nationwide secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 CO, NOX and SO2 are expected to total 188 tpy, and secondary emissions of the greenhouse gas pollutant CO2 are expected to total 27,900 tpy, with energy impacts of 461,000 MMBtu/yr and solid waste impacts of 5,210 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the technical memorandum, ‘‘Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0291. As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule, so there are no secondary impacts expected PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 for these sources. There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The five facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, which means that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. C. What are the economic impacts? For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average national brick price under the promulgated standards increases by 1.8 percent or $4.37 per E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE) (2011 dollars), while overall domestic production falls by 1.5 percent or 52 million bricks per year. Under the promulgated standards, the EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for BSCP Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, one sanitaryware company owns major sources and will incur costs (for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting). That affected company is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 0.002 percent of sales for the affected company. Hence, the economic impact for compliance is minimal. As noted above, there are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. Because no small firms face significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small entities. Thus, the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses, please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,’’ which is available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. D. What are the benefits? Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of this rule will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, NOX and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NOX are precursors to PM2.5, and NOX is a precursor to ozone. 65513 The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co-benefits for this rule. For this rule, we were only able to quantify the health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from changes in emissions directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. We estimate the monetized co-benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP in 2018 to be $83 million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate, not including consideration of energy disbenefits. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates.105 A summary of the emission reduction and monetized co-benefits estimates for this BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is illustrated in Table 10 of this preamble. TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED PM2.5 CO-BENEFITS FOR THE BSCP MANUFACTURING NESHAP IN 2018 [Millions of 2011 dollars] a b Emission reductions (tpy) Pollutant Total monetized co-benefits (3 percent discount) Total monetized co-benefits (7 percent discount) Directly emitted PM2.5 .............................. PM2.5 precursors SO2 ................................................... NOX c ................................................ 308 $83 to $190 ............................................. $75 to $170. 72 ¥46 $2.9 to $6.6 ............................................. ¥$0.29 to ¥$0.66 .................................. $2.6 to $6.0. ¥$0.26 to ¥$0.59. Total monetized benefits ........... ........................ $84 to $190 ............................................. $76 to $170. a All asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. b PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. c These emission reductions are the net emission reductions from the rule after subtracting out secondary emission increases due to additional energy requirements to run the control equipment. These estimates do not include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $3 million depending on the discount rate. See the RIA for more information about how the EPA monetized these disbenefits. These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a ‘‘benefit-per-ton’’ approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann, et al. (2012),106 but they have since been updated to reflect the studies and population data in the 2012 p.m. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) RIA.107 Specifically, we multiplied the benefitper-ton estimates from the ‘‘Non-EGU Point other’’ category by the corresponding emission reductions.108 All national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the 105 Roman, et al., 2008. ‘‘Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,’’ Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 106 Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. ‘‘Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S.’’ Environment International 49 41–151. 107 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA–452/R–12– 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pm/ 2012/finalria.pdf. 108 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES emission reductions in this rulemaking and, thus, they may not reflect the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefitper-ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support document, which is available as Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291– 0089. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study 109 and the extended Six Cities cohort study.110 In the RIA for the final rule, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0291, we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman, et al., 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship. Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter 111 documents the association between elevated PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the EPA’s 109 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortalityand Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132–1141. 110 Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. 2012. ‘‘Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.’’ Environ Health Perspect. July; 120(7):965–70. 111 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 independent SAB, concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine particles is without a threshold. In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level (LML) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements. For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not available due to time and resource limitations and, thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM2.5 level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefitper-ton estimates for this sector. Using the Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 mg/m 3. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8 mg/m3. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates, population and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules that model changes in air quality. PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA 112 because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this rule, and using a benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions. It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for this rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these promulgated standards. The specific control technologies for this rule are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 41 tons of NOX, about 3 tons of PM, less than 6 tons of CO and 121 tons of SO2 each year. Because we do not currently have methods to monetize emission changes of CO, only secondary effects of PM, SO2, and NOX were included in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits. For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rule, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,’’ which is available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 112 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA–452/R–12– 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0291–0087. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the dockets for this action. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP.’’ A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0291) and the analysis is briefly summarized here. The EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur total annualized costs of $24.6 million (2011 dollars) under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, including costs of emission controls, testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have testing and monitoring. The EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. The EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the final standards. The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the final rule, as described in section VI of this preamble. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource and methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAP each year for the promulgated standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule will reduce several non-Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) each year. The EPA estimates the total monetized co- VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 benefits to be $83 million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the promulgated standards. Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will exceed the costs. The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The remaining firm with major sources is estimated to incur costs as a result of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule and the firm only incurs costs associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total annualized costs are only $92,400 (2011 dollars) and the firm’s estimated costs of complying with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are less than 0.002 percent of sales. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2509.01. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2510.01. You can find copies of the ICRs in the dockets for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information collected from respondents will be used by EPA enforcement personnel to: (1) identify new, modified, reconstructed and existing sources subject to the standards; (2) ensure that MACT is being properly applied; and (3) ensure that the APCD are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on the reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at these facilities. The records that facilities maintain will indicate to the EPA whether the owners and operators are in compliance with the emission limitations (including PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65515 emission limits, operating limits) and work practice standards. Much of the information the EPA would need to determine compliance would be recorded and retained onsite at the facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to the EPA. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.) Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities. A BSCP facility manufactures brick, including face brick, structural brick, brick pavers, or other brick and/ or structural clay products including clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded, dimensional clay products. The BSCP facilities typically form, dry and fire bricks and shapes that are composed primarily of clay and shale. Kilns are used to fire BSCP. The rule applies to all new and existing tunnel and periodic kilns at BSCP facilities. Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and existing sources at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. A clay ceramics facility manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics facilities typically form, dry and fire tile or sanitaryware products that are composed of clay, shale and various additives. Spray dryers are used during the forming process at tile facilities to process the ceramic mix into a powder to allow tile pressing. Dryers are used to reduce the moisture content of the ceramic products prior to firing. Glazes are applied to some tile and sanitaryware products, with glaze spraying accounting for all glazing emissions. Kilns are used to fire the ceramic products and include ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel and shuttle kilns. The rule applies to all existing, new and reconstructed affected sources, which include the kilns, glaze spray operations, ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers. (Wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 65516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations dryers, with no measurable emissions, are not covered.) 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 emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (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 the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the final rule includes paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5-year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction. Collection of data will begin after the effective date of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after the effective date. The compliance date for new or reconstructed sources is the effective date if the source startup date is before the effective date, or upon startup if the startup date is on or after the effective date. The schedule for notifications and reports required by the rule is summarized below. For BSCP and clay ceramics facilities with existing affected sources, the initial notification stating that the facility is subject to the rule must be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the effective date of the rule. Facilities with new or reconstructed affected sources for which startup occurs on or after the effective date must submit the initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after the source becomes subject to the rule (although we are projecting no new affected sources in the short term). Facilities may choose to submit a request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard no later than 120 calendar days prior to the compliance date. Facilities required to conduct a performance test must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 scheduled to begin. For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification of compliance status no later than 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test. For each initial compliance demonstration that does not involve a performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification within 30 calendar days of completing the initial compliance demonstration. Records necessary to determine compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards must be compiled on a daily basis, and compliance reports must be submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual basis. Repeat performance tests are to be conducted every 5 years to ensure ongoing compliance. There are 90 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP, 84 of which have at least one tunnel kiln. An estimated 21 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 69 facilities (63 of which have a tunnel kiln) are expected to be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. For these 69 facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 20,963 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,113,105 per year (yr). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). No capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $682/yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 71 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $3,698/yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major sources of HAP and are expected to be subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. For these three facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to total 996 labor hours per year at a cost of $52,674/yr. As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44/yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 4.6 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $239/yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance reports, records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 48,674 labor hours per year, at a cost of $2,702,447/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $606,760/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $206,872/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $813,632/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,891 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $204,550/ yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) For the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 2,323 labor hours per year, at a cost of $122,786/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $72,050/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $27,069/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $99,119/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized here. We convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule’s requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included at 79 FR 75669–75671. As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is included in Section 5 of ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,’’ available for review in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2013–0291), and is summarized here. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 1. Need for the Rule The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator’s judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP source category are being finalized. 2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ control options. When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy and VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 non-air environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d). 3. Significant Issues Raised The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that were included based on SBAR Panel recommendations. See section V of this preamble and ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule—Summary of Public Comments and Responses’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for more detailed comment summaries and responses. • Work practices for dioxin/furan: One commenter stated that work practices for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA, and, even if they were, the work practices proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissions. Other commenters supported the proposed work practices for dioxin/ furan. Response: The EPA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as proposed. The EPA’s response to the legal arguments made against work practice standards is presented in ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule—Summary of Public Comments and Responses’’ found in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291). • Work practices for Hg and other metals: Several commenters responded to the EPA’s request for comment on work practices for Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should finalize work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support for their assertion that the numeric limits are technically and economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justified by the high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards. Response: Emissions of Hg and nonHg HAP metals were detected using standard EPA test methods; therefore, the Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and non-Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practices. The final numeric standards have been revised since the proposal to account for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw materials), removal of PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65517 test data found not to meet the requirements of the applicable data, and changes in the EPA’s approach to selecting the MACT floor pools (see section V.B.1 of this preamble for additional details). • Health-based standard for acid gases: Several commenters asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 112(d)(4) health-based standards for acid gases for BSCP facilities. Other commenters supported the EPA’s decision to propose health-based standards for acid gases but noted that the EPA’s approach was overly conservative and requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits based on site characteristics. Response: The EPA is finalizing the health-based standards for acid gases as proposed. The EPA’s response to the legal arguments made against healthbased standards is presented in section V.A of this preamble. The EPA is not changing the HBEL from proposal, as the proposed HBEL provides low potential for both chronic and acute health effects. • Size subcategories for MACT floors: Several commenters requested that the EPA subcategorize by size for the nonHg HAP metal/PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg. Response: As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for small and large kilns for nonHg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The EPA is also finalizing limits in three different formats for both pollutants to provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions. • Sawdust dryers: Several commenters requested that the EPA finalize a subcategory of sawdust-fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns and stated that there are only two operating that would be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. Response: Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data to demonstrate that emissions from sawdust dryers are different than other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a subcategory of sawdust-fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers. • Periods of startup and shutdown: One commenter stated that work practices for periods of startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful under the CAA. Other commenters supported the proposal to provide work practices for periods of E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES startup and shutdown, but suggested improvements to the standards to make them feasible for all tunnel kilns. Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that reflect best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see section V.B.2 of this preamble for additional information). • MACT floor pool: Several commenters supported the EPA’s proposal to calculate MACT floor standards for PM based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a FFbased APCD). One commenter asserted that the EPA’s proposal is unlawful and the EPA must consider other factors than the APCD type when setting MACT standards. Response: The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and found that some of the test data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data were removed, the EPA could no longer confirm that the data available to the agency represented all the best-performing sources. Therefore, the final PM and non-Hg HAP metals are based on the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data, regardless of APCD type (see section V.B.1 of this preamble for additional details). 4. SBA Comments The SBA’s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA’s proposals to set work practice standards and healthbased emission standards in all instances allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement. The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA’s responses are summarized below: • Hg standards: The EPA should pursue subcategorization by input (raw material) type and delay promulgation of a Hg standard to gather more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous compliance. Response: The EPA maintains that a delay in promulgation of an Hg standard is not appropriate for two reasons. First, under CAA section 112(e), the EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source categories by 2000. The EPA’s 2003 BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP was vacated, and that vacatur re-created the EPA’s obligation to set standards for the BSCP source category. Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300, 303–304 (D.D.C. 2012). Under the consent decree in that case, as amended in August 2014, the EPA was obligated to sign a VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 notice of final rulemaking to set standards for the BSCP source category by September 24, 2015. Second, the EPA notes that following proposal, it received additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the class or type of raw materials. However, the EPA has concluded that it has sufficient information to allow it to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. Thus, the EPA’s conclusion is that there is no basis to delay promulgation of the Hg standards in order to gather more information. • Economic analysis: The economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities is significantly underestimated. Specifically, the EPA should not annualize costs at 7 percent over 20 years because that does not reflect the financing options available to small entities, the EPA underestimated the cost for a facility to become a synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry. Response: The EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life of the control equipment at 7 percent. The EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays for an APCD because each firm has a different set of potential options for financing including debt financing, equity financing, and financing through retained earnings. The EPA acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and some may close. The EPA’s closure analysis is quite uncertain, but we do not have the detailed firm-specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agrees that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were underestimated, and the final rule impacts include testing costs for all facilities, as potential synthetic area sources would have to demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to apply for synthetic area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available to the agency to estimate the impact of the standards on all entities. The final Hg standards incorporate variability in the Hg content of raw materials, which is expected to ease the burdens on some small entities. 5. Affected Small Entities Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies are small PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost-to-sales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final standards, the EPA estimated that two to three small BSCP manufacturing facilities (two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities overall) are at significant risk of closure. 6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements Respondents would be required to provide one-time and periodic notifications, including initial notification, notification of performance tests, and notification of compliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the EPA’s ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources and APCD at the facility. 7. Significant Alternatives The EPA considered three major options for this final rule; see ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0291), for more information about the alternatives. Finalizing the proposed changes without revision is expected to have similar cost and emission reduction impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number of closures (one to two small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons outlined in this preamble and ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule—Summary of Public Comments and Responses’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0291, the EPA determined that the PM/ non-Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be finalized as proposed. The other alternative considered included the same standards for acid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only provided one set of limits PM/nonHg HAP metals (i.e., did not provide separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher number of closures (five to 10 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than two to three small BSCP manufacturing facilities). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is necessary to exercise its discretion to subcategorize by kiln size to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be available on the World Wide Web approximately 1 year after promulgation of the rule, at https:// www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/ brickpg.html. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in the memoranda ‘‘Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0291–0132 and ‘‘Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2013–0290–0213. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly affect productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use the following four voluntary consensus standards as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. The EPA has decided to use ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B and is available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at https:// www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990; or by telephone at (800) 843–2763. The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,’’ for its measurement of the concentration of gaseous HCl and HF and other gaseous chlorides and fluorides. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A. In addition, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ for its determination of elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, and total Hg emissions. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). Finally, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010), ‘‘Standard Test Method for PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65519 Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ for its use of an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack × 100)/%R. The standards ASTM D6735–01, ASTM D6784–02, and ASTM D6348–03 are available from the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) at https://www.astm.org; by mail at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; or by telephone at (610) 832–9585. While the EPA identified ASTM D7520–13, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere’’ as being potentially applicable as an alternative to Method 9 for measuring opacity from BSCP tunnel kilns, the agency decided not to use it. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be impractical. The five provisions for the use of this standard appear to be based on the assumption that the optical camera will be used on a daily basis. However, this rulemaking does not include daily Method 9 tests. The rule requirements are such that a Method 9 observation would need to be made unexpectedly and only when the Method 22 test failed. It would be unreasonable to expect that a source would be making daily calibrations of the camera when its use would be so infrequent. Given that, it is unlikely that the camera could be made ready in the time specified for the Method 9 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations readings. Therefore, this standard is not usable based on the current requirements in this rulemaking. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in the December 2014 proposal (79 FR 75672), the EPA determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. Additionally, the agency has conducted a proximity analysis for this rulemaking, which is located in the docket. (See ‘‘EJ Screening Report for Brick and Structural Clay,’’ Docket Item No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2013–0291–0102, and ‘‘EJ Screening Report for Clay Ceramics,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 0290–0241.) K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 24, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (g)(1); b. Revising paragraph (h)(75); c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(86) through (98) as paragraphs (h)(87) through (99), respectively; ■ d. Adding new paragraph (h)(86); ■ e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(88); and ■ f. Revising paragraph (m)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ ■ ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (g) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved for §§ 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ. * * * * * (h) * * * (75) ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix B to subpart UUUUU. * * * * * (86) ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK. * * * * * (88) ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for §§ 63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD, tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU. * * * * * (m) * * * (2) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR approved for §§ 63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f). * * * * * 3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows: ■ Subpart JJJJJ—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Sec. What This Subpart Covers 63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards 63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? General Compliance Requirements 63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8490 What records must I keep? 63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Work Practice Standards Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— Compliance Dates Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— Requirements for Notifications Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— Requirements for Reports Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ Subpart JJJJJ—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing What This Subpart Covers asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8380 subpart? What is the purpose of this This subpart establishes national emission limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. § 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP emissions VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory products, as defined in § 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in § 63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. § 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility. (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected sources are described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are an affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln. (2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. (2) Raw material processing and handling. (3) Dryers. (4) Sources covered by subparts KKKKK and SSSSS of this part. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in § 63.2. PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65521 (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) You must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance dates in Table 7 to this subpart. (b) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.8480 according to the schedule in § 63.8480 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 and Work Practice Standards § 63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you. § 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet the work practice standards for affected periodic kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. (c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. (d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations General Compliance Requirements asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods that you are approved for and in compliance with the alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and except during periods of start-up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart. (b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.8395 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. (c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in § 63.8425. (d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue operating the kiln subject to the alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provided you satisfy VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in § 63.8395. Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, provide information stating whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance alternative standard, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source’s title V permit. (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (e) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in this subpart at all times. (f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart. § 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limitations in § 63.8405. The limits must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD). (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations). (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§ 63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in § 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan in § 63.8(d)(2) is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§ 63.8485 and 63.8490. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests? For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.8395 and according to the provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). § 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. § 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour. Where: Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 (2) To determine compliance with the health-based standard for acid gas HAP PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least 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. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production-based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1: for BSCP manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 2: ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds) per hour RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per cubic meter E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.015</GPH> achieved at the revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under § 63.9(h). (d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test. ER26OC15.014</GPH> including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits. (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance. (13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take the kiln control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in § 63.8420(d), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln during periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator as specified in § 63.7(b). (2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be 65523 65524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 3: Where: Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) Compare this value to the healthbased standard in Table 1 to this subpart. (g) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart. (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln, calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 4: Where: Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) of fired product RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter Where: Emax total = maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, determine the maximum process rate for the tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would become your operating limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan. Where: Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per hour HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26 kilograms (57 pounds) per hour MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) of fired product RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, determine the combination of maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.019</GPH> ER26OC15.017</GPH> ER26OC15.018</GPH> (iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 5: ER26OC15.016</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (2) [Reserved] (h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits. (2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-ofcontrol periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in § 63.8420(d)). (3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in § 63.8420(d)). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (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 measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65525 (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration at one point daily. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA–454/R–98–015, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the EPA–454/R–98–015, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Record each adjustment. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone at least as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test. (h) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being measured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (i) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§ 63.8445(h) and 63.8(f). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 5 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 § 63.8445 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 § 63.8480(c). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in § 63.8420(d) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. § 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. (b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as required in § 63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described in §§ 63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.8485(c)(9). (d) [Reserved] PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 (e)(1) VE testing. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. (i) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes. (ii) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, you must promptly conduct an opacity test, according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4. If opacity greater than 10 percent is observed, you must initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. (iii) You may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for a kiln stack if one of the conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met. (A) No VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack; or (B) No opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack. (iv) If VE are observed during any weekly test and opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent Method 9 test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, on a daily basis, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and maintain that schedule until one of the conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (v) If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in § 63.8485. (2) Alternative to VE testing. In lieu of meeting the requirements under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, you may conduct a PM test at least once every year following the initial performance test, according to the procedures of E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when? (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 8 to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified. (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, your Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 8 to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) The requirements in § 63.9(h)(2)(i). (2) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. (3) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in § 63.8450(e). § 63.8485 when? What reports must I submit and asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES (a) You must submit each report in Table 9 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 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. Where: RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device was offline for routine control device maintenance DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous semiannual compliance period DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard for the current semiannual compliance period VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.8395 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. The first reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance request developed as specified in § 63.8420(d). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance request, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 7. KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period KUc = Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance period compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period. (5) A report of the most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart. (6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.020</GPH> Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, and the provisions of § 63.8445(e) and (f)(1). 65527 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 65528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (8) The first compliance report must contain the startup push rate for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and the temperature profile for each kiln without an APCD. (9) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report such events in the compliance report by including the information in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred. (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(9), and paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (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 pertinent information in your OM&M plan. (4) Whether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (5) A description of any corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that were 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 source operating time during that reporting period. (8) A brief description of the process units. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 (9) A brief description of the CMS. (10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. (e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 9 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. (f) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ index.html) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. § 63.8490 What records must I keep? (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance request, if you request to use the alternative standard under § 63.8420(d). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation, record the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment. (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.8420(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a fired-product basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures. (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD. (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records documenting conformance. (7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your periodic kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets. (ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. (8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart. (9) Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns. (10) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following information: (i) The date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, recording the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown. (ii) For periods of startup, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust temperature prior to the time the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln temperature profile is attained (for a kiln with no APCD). (iii) For periods of shutdown, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust temperature after the time the kiln exhaust falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln temperature profile is no longer maintained (for a kiln with no APCD). (11) All site-specific parameters, temperature profiles, and procedures VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 required to be established or developed according to the applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart. § 63.8495 In what form and for 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 onsite 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 § 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. § 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your state, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§ 63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in § 63.8395, and the nonopacity emission limitations in § 63.8405. (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90. PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65529 (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under § 63.8420(d). § 63.8515 subpart? What definitions apply to this Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, lightscattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory products, as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/ FF) means an APCD that includes E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for reuse. Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Initial startup means: (1) For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA, the time at which the temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 °C (500 °F) and the kiln contains product; or (2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier. Fired product means brick or structural clay products that have gone through the firing process via kilns. Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer. Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long-term integrity of the APCD. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8), and as a surrogate for non-mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln. Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Startup push rate means the kiln push rate required to bring the kiln to the proper operating temperature during startup. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP. Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the void space in the brick, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . Or you must comply with the following . . . 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at facility, including all process streams. HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent, under the healthbased standard, as determined using Equations 2 and 3. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of fired product. Not applicable. 2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tons per hour (tph) of fired product), including all process streams. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.1 E–05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (4.1 E–05 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. 3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 i. PM emissions must not exceed 6.6 mg/ dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr). i. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.7 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 17% O2; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.5 E–04 kg/hr (5.5 E–04 lb/hr). i. PM emissions must not exceed 4.8 mg/ dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr). i. Hg emissions must not exceed 91 μg/ dscm at 17% O2; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65531 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS—Continued For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . Or you must comply with the following . . . 4. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired product.. i. PM emissions must not exceed 3.2 mg/ dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.2 μg/ dscm at 17% O2. ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.6 E–04 kg/hr (3.4 E–04 lb/hr). i. PM emissions must not exceed 4.7 mg/ dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 91 μg/ dscm at 17% O2. ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product. 5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS For each . . . You must . . . 1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; or, if you are monitoring the bypass stack damper position, initiate corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan; and b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack. a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test for continuous injection systems in which compliance was demonstrated. a. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. a. Maintain no VE from the stack. b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8445(g)(1). 2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. 5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on control. As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS You must . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln .. a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln ..... a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions .................. 3. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of startup. a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. 4. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of shutdown. a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. 5. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of routine control device maintenance. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . a. Minimize HAP emissions. ............................ i. Develop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and iii. For each firing load, document the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1b; and iv. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and v. Develop and maintain records for each periodic kiln, as specified in § 63.8490. i. Maintain and inspect the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion. i. Establish the startup push rate for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and temperature profile for each kiln without an APCD and include them in your first compliance report, as specified in § 63.8485(c)(8); and ii. After initial charging of the kiln with loaded kiln cars, remain at or below the startup push rate for the kiln until the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln with an APCD or until the kiln temperature profile is attained for a kiln with no APCD; and iii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature. i. Do not push loaded kiln cars into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln temperature profile is no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln; and ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. i. Develop and use a temperature profile for each kiln; and ii. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios; and iii. Develop and maintain records for each kiln, as specified in § 63.8490(a)(3). As stated in § 63.8445, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65533 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. Tunnel kiln ....................... a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. e. Measure HF, HCl and Cl2 emissions. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. i. Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; or. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. ii. Method 320 of appendix A of this part. f. Measure PM emissions or non-Hg HAP metals. g. Measure Hg emissions 2. Tunnel kiln with no addon control. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 3. Tunnel kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits. 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Establish the operating limit(s) for kiln process rate if the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions are greater than the HClequivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits. a. Establish the operating limit for the average pressure drop across the DLA. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 i. For PM only: Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; or. ii. For PM or non-Hg HAP metals: Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart and emissions and production data from the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performance tests (e.g., no. of pushes per hour, no. of bricks per kiln car, weight of a typical fired brick). Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the HF/HCl/ Cl2 performance test. Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A. When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part, unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1–A8 are mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined for each target analyte. ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). Using the procedures in § 63.8445(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate(s) for your kiln(s) that would ensure total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart. The maximum process rate(s) would become your sitespecific process rate operating limit(s). You must measure and record the production rate, on a fired-product basis, of the affected source for each of the three test runs. You must continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued For each . . . You must . . . b. Establish the operating limit for the limestone feeder setting. 5. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. 6. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. Using . . . Data from the limestone You must ensure that you maintain an adequate feeder during the HF/ amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storHCl/Cl2 performance test. age bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times during the performance test. You must establish your limestone feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, one week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the one-week period that precedes the performance test and during the performance test. Records of limestone purchase. c. Document the source and grade of limestone used. Establish the operating limit for the lime feeder setting. According to the following requirements . . . Data from the lime feeder during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. Data from the pH measurement device during the performance HF/HCl/ Cl2 performance test. b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. 7. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance tests. Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. As stated in § 63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, for the three test runs. If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific feed rate operating limit. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pH measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific liquid pH operating limit. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating level. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals tests, the highest of the average values become your site-specific operating limit. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at the facility, including all process streams. a. HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent. i. You measure HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); and VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65535 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . For the following . . . 2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.018 kg/ Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/ dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or. b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr). c. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.1 E–05 kg/Mg (4.1 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7.7 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E–04 kg/hr (5.5 E–04 lb/hr). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/ dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or. PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for each kiln using Equation 2 to this subpart; and iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 3 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/ dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2. i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.0026 kg/ hr (0.0057 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2.1 E–05 kg/ Mg (4.1 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7.7 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E–04 kg/hr (5.5 E–04 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2.1 E–05 kg/Mg (4.1 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7.7 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E–04 kg/hr (5.5 E–04 lb/hr). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/ dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr). For each . . . i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.047 kg/ hr (0.11 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/ hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/ Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.0089 kg/ Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/ dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2. i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.0026 kg/ hr (0.0057 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/ Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.2 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 1.6 E–04 kg/hr (3.4 E–04 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.2 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 1.6 E–04 kg/hr (3.4 E–04 lb/hr). c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 4. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0089 kg/ Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/ dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or. b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.2 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 1.6 E–04 kg/hr (3.4 E–04 lb/hr). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65537 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.015 kg/ Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.7 mg/ dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.7 mg/ dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2. i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.047 kg/ hr (0.11 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/ hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/ Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and iii. Develop maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles. i. Conduct initial inspection of the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion. b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr). c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. 7. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln ..... asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 6. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln .. a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions .................. As stated in § 63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with a DLA. 2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the DLA pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; or continuously monitoring the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation, and initiating corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan; and ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) contain adequate limestone by performing a daily visual check, which could include one of the following: (1) Conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone; and iii. Recording the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintaining records of the source and type of limestone; and v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack. i. If you use a bag leak detection system, as prescribed in 63.8450(e), initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/ FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once during each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. i. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65539 TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with ACI system. 5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on control. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns with no add-on control. Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the stack. 6. Periodic kiln ................................. a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... 7. Tunnel kiln ................................... a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions ii. If your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the health-based standard in Table 1 to this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3-hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8445(g)(1). i. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; and ii. For each firing load, documenting the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in Item 1.a.ii of Table 3 to this subpart; and iii. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and iv. Developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, as specified in § 63.8490. i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable) and tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion no later than 36 calendar months after the previous tune-up; and ii. Maintaining records of burner tune-ups used to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard; and iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune-up conducted with compliance report. As stated in § 63.8395, you must meet each compliance date in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 7 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—COMPLIANCE DATES Then you must . . . No later than . . . 1. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before December 28, 2015. 2. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 28, 2015. 3. Existing affected source ................................. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES If you have a(n) . . . Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart. December 28, 2015. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart. Be in compliance with this subpart .................. Initial startup of your affected source. 4. Existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing. 5. New area source (i.e., an area source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Be in compliance with this subpart .................. PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 December 26, 2018. Initial startup of your affected source as a major source. Initial startup of your affected source as a major source. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65540 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations As stated in § 63.8480, you must submit each notification that applies to you according to the following table: TABLE 8 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . . 1. Start up your affected source before December 28, 2015. 2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after December 28, 2015. 3. Are required to conduct a performance test. Submit an Initial Notification ........... June 22, 2016 ................................. § 63.9(b)(2). Submit an Initial Notification ........... 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart. § 63.9(b)(2). Submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test. § 63.7(b)(1). 4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart. 5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards). 6. Request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard according to § 63.8420(d). Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results. 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test, by the close of business. Submit a Notification of Compliance Status. 30 calendar days following the completion of the compliance demonstrations, by the close of business. § 63.9(h). Submit your request ....................... 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in § 63.8395. § 63.9(h) and § 63.10(d)(2). As stated in § 63.8485, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: TABLE 9 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. A compliance report. ................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits, operating limits) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period. b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in § 63.8485(c)(9). If there were periods during which the CMS was out-of-control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in § 63.8485(d). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8485(b). As stated in § 63.8505, you must comply with the General Provisions in Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8485(b). §§ 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ Subject Brief description § 63.1 .................................. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Citation Applicability ........................ § 63.2 § 63.3 § 63.4 § 63.5 Definitions .......................... Units and Abbreviations .... Prohibited Activities ........... Construction/Reconstruction. Applicability ........................ Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards ................................... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards .............. Compliance date; circumvention; severability ............... Applicability; applications; approvals ............................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. § 63.6(a) .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Applies to subpart JJJJJ? General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65541 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued Citation Subject Brief description § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Notification ......................... Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. ........................................................................................ Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were area sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 calendar days of effective date unless compliance extension. ........................................................................................ Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). ........................................................................................ General Duty to minimize emissions ............................ § 63.6(b)(5) ......................... § 63.6(b)(6) ......................... § 63.6(b)(7) ......................... § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................... § 63.6(c)(5) .......................... [Reserved] ......................... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. § 63.6(d) .............................. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...................... [Reserved] ......................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. [Reserved] ......................... Operation & Maintenance § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..................... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ..................... Operation & Maintenance Operation & Maintenance § 63.6(e)(2) ......................... § 63.6(e)(3) ......................... § 63.6(f)(1) .......................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................... § 63.6(g) .............................. § 63.6(h) .............................. § 63.6(i) ............................... § 63.6(j) ............................... § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ................... § 63.7(a)(3) ......................... § 63.7(a)(4) ......................... § 63.7(b)(1) ......................... § 63.7(b)(2) ......................... § 63.7(c) .............................. § 63.7(d) .............................. § 63.7(e)(1) ......................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(3) ................... asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Applies to subpart JJJJJ? § 63.7(e)(4) ......................... § 63.7(f) ............................... § 63.7(g) .............................. § 63.7(h) .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP ................. Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations. [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ Startup, Shutdown, and Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction Malfunction Plan (SSMP). (SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP. Compliance Except During You must comply with emission standards at all times SSM. except during SSM. Methods for Determining Compliance based on performance test, operation and Compliance. maintenance plans, records, inspection. Alternative Standard .......... Procedures for getting an alternative standard ............. Opacity/VE Standards ....... Requirements for opacity and VE standards ................ Compliance Extension ....... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Presidential Compliance President may exempt source category ....................... Exemption. Performance Test Dates ... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations for emission limits and work practice standards; must conduct 180 calendar days after first subject to rule. Section 114 Authority ........ Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Notification of Delay in Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testPerformance Testing ing due to force majeure. Due To Force Majeure. Notification of Performance Must notify Administrator 60 calendar days before the Test. test. Notification of ReschedMust notify Administrator 5 calendar days before uling. scheduled date of rescheduled date. Quality Assurance(QA)/ Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performTest Plan. ance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Testing Facilities ................ Requirements for testing facilities ................................. Conditions for Conducting Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a Performance Tests. violation to exceed standard during SSM. Conditions for Conducting Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test Performance Tests. methods unless Administrator approves alternative; must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Testing under Section 114 Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. Alternative Test Method .... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Performance Test Data Must include raw data in performance test report; Analysis. must submit performance test data 60 calendar days after end of test with the notification of compliance status. Waiver of Tests ................. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. See § 63.8420(b) for general duty requirement. No. Yes. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, § 63.8445 specifies requirements. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 65542 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued Citation Subject Brief description § 63.8(a)(1) ......................... Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart ........ Yes. § 63.8(a)(2) ......................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Performance Specifications Yes. § 63.8(a)(3) ......................... § 63.8(a)(4) ......................... § 63.8(b)(1) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Monitoring .......................... § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Routine and Predictable SSM. SSM not in SSMP ............. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. ........................................................................................ Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ...................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems. Maintenance consistent with good air pollution control practices. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSMP. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. § 63.8(c)(1) .......................... § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...................... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...................... § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ..................... § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................... § 63.8(c)(4) .......................... § 63.8(c)(5) .......................... § 63.8(c)(6) .......................... § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ................... § 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ............. § 63.8(d)(3) ......................... § 63.8(e) .............................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................... § 63.8(f)(6) .......................... § 63.8(g) § 63.9(a) § 63.9(b) § 63.9(c) .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. § 63.9(d) .............................. § 63.9(e) .............................. § 63.9(f) ............................... § 63.9(g)(1) ......................... § 63.9(g)(2)–(3) ................... § 63.9(h) .............................. § 63.9(i) ............................... asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.9(j) ............................... § 63.10(a) ............................ § 63.10(b)(1) ....................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Monitoring System Installation. CMS Requirements ........... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements ........... CMS Requirements ........... CMS Quality Control ......... CMS Quality Control ......... CMS Performance Evaluation. Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction .................. Notification Requirements Initial Notifications ............. Request for Compliance Extension. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information. Recordkeeping/Reporting .. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Records Related to SSM .. 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Applies to subpart JJJJJ? Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements. Requirements for CMS .................................................. COMS minimum procedures ......................................... Zero and high level calibration check requirements ..... Out-of-control periods .................................................... Requirements for CMS quality control .......................... Written procedures for CMS ......................................... Requirements for CMS performance evaluation ........... Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy test for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements ........... Applicability; State delegation ....................................... Requirements for initial notifications. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify Administrator 60 calendar days prior .................. No. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No, § 63.8450 specifies requirements. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, § 63.8425(b)(9) specifies requirements Yes. Yes. No, not applicable. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Notify Administrator 30 calendar days prior .................. No, not applicable. Notification of performance evaluation .......................... Yes. Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded. Contents; submittal requirements ................................. No, not applicable. Yes. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 calendar days after the change Yes. Applicability; general information .................................. General requirements .................................................... Yes. Yes. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns. No. Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Yes. Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65543 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard .............. No. See § 63.8490(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ............ § 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xii) and (xiv). § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................. Records Related to SSM .. Records Related to SSM .. CMS Records .................... § 63.10(b)(3) ....................... § 63.10(c)(1)–(15) ............... Records ............................. Records ............................. Maintenance records. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ........ Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or out-of-control. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. Applicability Determinations .......................................... Additional records for CMS ........................................... § 63.10(d)(1) and (2) ........... § 63.10(d)(4) ....................... General Reporting Requirements. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Progress Reports .............. § 63.10(d)(5) ....................... SSM Reports ..................... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Contents and submission. ............................................. § 63.10(e)(1)–(3) ................. Additional CMS Reports .... Requirements for CMS reporting .................................. § 63.10(e)(4) ....................... Reporting COMS data ....... § 63.10(f) ............................. Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Flares ................................. Delegation ......................... Addresses .......................... Incorporation by Reference Availability of Information .. Performance Track Provisions. Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data. Procedures for Administrator to waive .......................... § 63.10(d)(3) ....................... § 63.11 § 63.12 § 63.13 § 63.14 § 63.15 § 63.16 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ Records ............................. 4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as follows: ■ Subpart KKKKK—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Sec. What This Subpart Covers 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards 63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Requirements for reporting; performance test results reporting. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE .................. Requirement for flares ................................................... State authority to enforce standards. Addresses for reports, notifications, requests ............... Materials incorporated by reference ............................. Information availability; confidential information ........... Requirements for Performance Track member facilities General Compliance Requirements 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 No. Yes. Yes. No, §§ 63.8425 and 63.8490 specify requirements Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. No. See § 63.8485(c)(9) for malfunction reporting requirements. No, §§ 63.8425 and 63.8485 specify requirements. No, not applicable. Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8640 What records must I keep? 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Emission Limits E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Work Practice Standards Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Toxic Equivalency Factors Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Compliance Dates Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Requirements for Notifications Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Requirements for Reports Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK Subpart KKKKK—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing What This Subpart Covers § 63.8530 subpart? What is the purpose of this This subpart establishes national emission limitations and work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory products, as defined in § 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as defined in § 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. § 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. (b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, sanitaryware shuttle kiln, ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying, sanitaryware glaze spray booth, ceramic tile spray dryer, and floor tile press dryer is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section. (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for refiring. (2) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. (3) Glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (4) Process units listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section that are permitted to, but do not, process firstfire ware, until such time as they begin to process first-fire ware. (5) Glaze spray operations that on average use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year. (6) Raw material processing and handling. (7) Wall tile press dryers. (8) Sanitaryware ware dryers. (9) Sources covered by subparts JJJJJ and SSSSS of this part. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in § 63.2. (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) You must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance dates in Table 8 to this subpart. (b) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.8630 according to the schedule in § 63.8630 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. PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards § 63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you. § 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet the work practice standards for affected sanitaryware shuttle kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. (c) To meet the work practice standards for affected sources during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. General Compliance Requirements § 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods that you are approved for and in compliance with the alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and except during periods of start-up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart. (b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.8545 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. (c) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in § 63.8575. (d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that affected source, you may bypass the source control device and continue operating the affected source subject to the alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provided you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in § 63.8545. Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during source shutdowns, provide information stating whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 maintenance is performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each affected source. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance alternative standard, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source’s title V permit. (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (e) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice standard at all times, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available. (f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this subpart. § 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the delegated authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limitations in § 63.8555. The limits must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65545 (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD). (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations). (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§ 63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in § 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan in § 63.8(d)(2) is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§ 63.8635 and 63.8640. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits. (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests? For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.8545 and according to the provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). § 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. § 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. Stacks to be tested at sanitaryware manufacturing facilities shall be limited to products of asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of throughput ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of throughput per hour. Where: MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of PM per megagram (ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour G = glaze application rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of first-fire glaze sprayed per hour (dry weight basis). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 (2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and (3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 combustion (POC) stacks and those cooling stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.5 percent. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least 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. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production-based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1: sanitaryware glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) for each test run using Equation 2: dryers, and floor tile press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8– TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQs) for each test run using Equation 3: E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.022</GPH> (13) If you operate an affected source and you plan to take the source control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in § 63.8570(d), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the affected source during periods of routine maintenance of the source control device when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on the source control device when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator as specified in § 63.7(b). (2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under § 63.9(h). (d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test. ER26OC15.021</GPH> 65546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations n = number of congeners included in TEQ Tr = time of performance test run, hours P = production rate during performance test run, kilograms of throughput processed per hour. 65547 (4) To determine compliance with the health-based standard for acid gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing Where: Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, sum the HClequivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 5: Where: Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) Compare this value to the healthbased standard in Table 1 to this subpart. (g) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart. (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel or roller kiln, you must calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 6: Where: Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of throughput per hour MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic meter Where: Emax total = maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour n = number of kilns at facility (iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.026</GPH> ER26OC15.024</GPH> ER26OC15.025</GPH> (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7: ER26OC15.027</GPH> facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 4: ER26OC15.023</GPH> asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8–TCDD TEQs, nanograms per kilogram of throughput processed. Mi = mass of dioxin or furan congener i during performance test run, nanograms TEFi = 2,3,7,8–TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for congener i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart 65548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations rate and must be included in your OM&M plan. and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits. (2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (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 measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration at one point daily. (iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the combination of maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the HClequivalent limit. The maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan. (2) [Reserved] (h) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 § 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-ofcontrol periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in § 63.8570(d)). (3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard as specified in § 63.8570(d)). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.028</GPH> potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would become your operating limit for process Where: Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per hour HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62 kilograms (140 pounds) per hour MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per cubic meter asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the maximum process rate for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensure the total facility maximum asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the EPA–454/R–98–015, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). (10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 follows a complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Record each adjustment. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being measured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§ 63.8595(h) and 63.8(f). § 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 6 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 § 63.8595 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 § 63.8630(e). Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65549 monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in § 63.8570(d) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. § 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart. (b) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as required in § 63.8595(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described in §§ 63.8595(h)(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.8635(c)(8). (d) [Reserved] (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. You must conduct E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes. (2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in § 63.8635. Notifications, Reports, and Records asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when? (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 9 to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified. (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, your Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 9 to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) The requirements in § 63.9(h)(2)(i). (2) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. (3) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in § 63.8600(e). (d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 to this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, your notification of alternative fuel use must include the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the natural gas supply interruption began. (4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use. (5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to begin and end. § 63.8635 when? What reports must I submit and (a) You must submit each report in Table 10 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 10 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.8545 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. This reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the affected source controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance request developed as specified in § 63.8570(d). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance request, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of affected source operating uptime during which the control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 9. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Where: RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which control device was offline for routine control device maintenance DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous semiannual compliance period DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance alternative standard for the current semiannual compliance period SUp = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period SUc = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual compliance period (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period. (7) The first compliance report must contain the startup production rate for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln; the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD; and the temperature profile for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln without an APCD. (8) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report such events in the compliance report by including the information in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the deviation occurred. (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(8), and paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (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 pertinent information in your OM&M plan. (4) Whether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (5) A description of any corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. (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 source operating time during that reporting period. (8) A brief description of the process units. (9) A brief description of the CMS. (10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. (e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting the PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65551 compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. (f) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason for using the alternative fuel. (4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln. (5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended. (6) Amount of alternative fuel used. (g) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ index.html) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 ER26OC15.029</MATH> Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8640 What records must I keep? (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance request, if you request to use the alternative standard under § 63.8570(d). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation, record the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation. (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment. (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.8570(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a ton throughput processed basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures. (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD. (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records documenting conformance. (7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets. (ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of greenware fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. (8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware shuttle kiln work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart. (9) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following information: (i) The date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, recording the periods when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown. (ii) For periods of startup, the production rate and exhaust temperature prior to the time the exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with an APCD) or the temperature profile is attained (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD). (iii) For periods of shutdown, the production rate and exhaust temperature after the time the exhaust falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with an APCD) or the temperature profile is no longer maintained (for PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD). (10) All site-specific parameters, temperature profiles, and procedures required to be established or developed according to the applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart. § 63.8645 In what form and for 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 onsite 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 § 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 11 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. § 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your state, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§ 63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in § 63.8545, and the non- E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations opacity emission limitations in § 63.8555. (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90. (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as defined in in § 63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under § 63.8570(d). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.8665 subpart? What definitions apply to this Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, lightscattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory products, as defined in § 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as defined in § 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 2,3,7,8– VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this subpart. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/ FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Fired product means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have gone through the firing process via kilns. Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material applied to ceramic products before firing. Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic products, which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of one or more glaze spray booths) and other types of glazing operations (e.g., dipping, flooding, centrifugal disc glazing, curtain coating). Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze on ceramic products. Glaze spray operation means any type of glaze application that uses glaze spraying, including glaze lines and glaze spray booths. Greenware means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have not gone through the firing process via kilns. Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing clay ceramics, whichever is earlier. Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the void space in the product, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long-term integrity of the APCD. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 65553 filterable PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8), and as a surrogate for non-mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel kiln except that the unfired ceramic product travels through the kiln in a single layer on rollers. In the clay ceramics source category, roller kilns are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants. Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. In the clay ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants. Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a free-flowing powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Startup production rate means the kiln, press dryer or spray dryer production rate required to bring the process unit to the proper operating temperature during startup. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics source category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants. Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 As stated in § 63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . 1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at facility. 2. Existing floor tile roller kiln .......... HF and HCl emissions must not exceed 62 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (140 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl equivalent, under the health-based standard, as determined using Equations 4 and 5. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.063 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.13 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2.8 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) of fired product. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln .......... 4. Existing first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln. 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying. 6. Existing sanitaryware manual glaze application. 7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze application. 8. Existing sanitaryware robot glaze application. 9. Existing floor tile spray dryer ...... 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer ..... 11. Existing floor tile press dryer .... 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln. 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln. 14. New or reconstructed first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln. 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware manual glaze application. 17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware spray machine glaze application. 18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware robot glaze application. 19. New or reconstructed floor tile spray dryer. 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer. 21. New or reconstructed floor tile press dryer. PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). PM emissions must not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). PM emissions must not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput processed. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed. As stated in § 63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65555 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS For each . . . You must . . . 1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems in which compliance was demonstrated. a. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, maintain the stack temperature at or below the highest 4-hour average stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. a. Maintain no VE from the stack; and b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8595(g)(1) if your total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart; and c. Maintain the stack temperature at or below the highest 4-hour average stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the FF stack; and a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. Conduct daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system; and Conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks; and Conduct annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. 4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no addon control. 6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a FF. 7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped with a water curtain. 9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. 10. Spray dryer ............................... 11. Floor tile press dryer ................. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. As stated in § 63.8555, you must comply with each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 3 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS You must . . . According to one of the following requirements . . . 1. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shuttle kiln. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in § 63.8665; and ii. Develop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and iv. For each firing load, document the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1.a.iii; and v. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . You must . . . According to one of the following requirements . . . 2. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of startup. a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... 3. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of shutdown. a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... 4. Existing, new or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer or ceramic tile spray dryer during periods of routine control device maintenance. a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in § 63.8640. i. Establish the startup production rate for each kiln or dryer; the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD; and temperature profile for each kiln or dryer with no APCD and include them in your first compliance report, as specified in § 63.8635(c)(7); and ii. After initial loading of the kiln or dryer, remain at or below the startup production rate for the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln or dryer with an APCD or until the kiln or dryer temperature profile is attained for a kiln or dryer with no APCD; and iii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin venting the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature. i. Do not load the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln or dryer is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln or dryer temperature profile is no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln or dryer; and ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for the APCD. i. Develop and use a temperature profile for each kiln or dryer; and ii. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air-tofuel ratios; and iii. Develop and maintain records for each kiln or dryer, as specified in § 63.8640(a)(3). As stated in § 63.8595, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. Tunnel or roller kiln ......... a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. e. Measure HF and HCl emissions. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. i. Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; or. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65557 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . ii. Method 320 of appendix A of this part. f. Measure PM emissions .. g. Measure Hg emissions According to the following requirements . . . When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part, you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part, unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1–A8 are mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined for each target analyte. i. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; or. ii. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. e. Measure PM emissions 3. Spray dryer or floor tile press dryer. Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. 2. Glaze spray operation ..... h. Measure dioxin/furan emissions. a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. f. Measure Hg emissions (tile glaze spray operations only). a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. 4. Tunnel or roller kiln with no add-on control. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. e. Measure dioxin/furan emissions. a. Establish the operating limit(s) for kiln process rate if the total facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions are greater than the HClequivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3. Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7. HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart and emissions and production data from the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. Using the procedures in § 63.8595(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate(s) for your kiln(s) that would ensure total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart. The maximum process rate(s) would become your sitespecific process rate operating limit(s). E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . b. Establish the stack temperature operating limit. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits. Establish the operating limit for the lime feeder setting. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performance tests (e.g., the number of ceramic pieces and weight per piece in the kiln during a test run divided by the amount of time to fire a piece). Data from the lime feeder during the HF/HCl performance test. You must continuously measure the stack temperature and determine and record the temperature values for the three test runs. The highest 4-hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes your maximum site-specific stack temperature operating limit. You must measure and record the production rate, on a ton of throughput processed basis, of the affected kiln for each of the three test runs. 6. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. 7. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the pH measurement device during the HF/HCl performance test. b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests. 8. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. 9. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Establish the stack temperature operating limit. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. 10. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM performance test. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton of throughput basis, for the three test runs. If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific feed rate operating limit. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pH measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific liquid pH operating limit. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating level. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the HF/HCl and PM tests, the highest of the average values become your site-specific operating limit. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. You must continuously measure the stack temperature and determine and record the temperature values for the three test runs. The highest 4-hour average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes your maximum site-specific stack temperature operating limit. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65559 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the PM performance test. 11. Spray dryer .................... Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. 12. Floor tile press dryer ..... Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating limit. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific operating limit. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site-specific operating limit. As stated in § 63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by calculating the sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the TEFs in the following table: TABLE 5 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS You must calculate its 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ using the following TEF . . . For each dioxin/furan congener . . . 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................... Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................... 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................... 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................. Octachlorodibenzofuran ..................................................................................................................................................... As stated in § 63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.0003 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.0003 practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility. a. HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr) HCl equivalent. i. You measure HF and HCl emissions for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); and VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . 2. Existing floor tile roller kiln .......... You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2.8 ng/kg of fired product. 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln ........... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 4. Existing first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ ton) of greenware fired. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF for each kiln using Equation 4 to this subpart; and iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 5 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/ hr). i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/ ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/ ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E– 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ ton) of fired product. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2.8 ng/kg of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 2.8 ng/kg of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E– 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ ton) of fired product. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware fired. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E– 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65561 TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying. 6. Existing sanitaryware manual glaze application. 7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze application. 8. Existing sanitaryware robot glaze application. 9. Existing floor tile spray dryer ...... asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer ..... 11. Existing floor tile press dryer .... VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance fired. test, do not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired. a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of firstappendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acfire glaze sprayed (dry weight cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 basis). kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of (dry weight basis). the initial performance test, do not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E– 04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acglaze sprayed (dry weight basis). cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 18 kg/ Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acglaze sprayed (dry weight basis). cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/ Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acglaze sprayed (dry weight basis). cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.5 kg/ Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance processed. test, do not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed. a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughpart 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance put processed. test, do not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed. a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughpart 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance put processed. test, do not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed; and Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln. You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product. 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 14. New or reconstructed first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ ton) of greenware fired. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E– 05 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ ton) of fired product. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E– 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ ton) of fired product. i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ ton) of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E– 04 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65563 TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying. 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware manual glaze application. 17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware spray machine glaze application. 18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware robot glaze application. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 19. New or reconstructed floor tile spray dryer. 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer. 21. New or reconstructed floor tile press dryer. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ ton) of greenware fired. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance fired. test, do not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired. a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of firstappendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acfire glaze sprayed (dry weight cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.31 basis). kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). b. Hg emissions must not exceed i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed 2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of (dry weight basis). the initial performance test, do not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E– 04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acglaze sprayed (dry weight basis). cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 2.0 kg/ Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acglaze sprayed (dry weight basis). cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/ Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. PM emissions must not exceed i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, acglaze sprayed (dry weight basis). cording to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.2 kg/ Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughpart 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance put processed. test, do not exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput processed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput processed. a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughpart 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance put processed. test, do not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed. a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughpart 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance put processed. test, do not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed; and Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . 22. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed. i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel; and ii. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for the sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle; and iv. Develop maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles. As stated in § 63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES For each . . . a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with WS. i. If you use a bag leak detection system, as prescribed in 63.8450(e), initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/ FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. i. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and ii Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65565 TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with ACI system. 4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel or roller kilns with no add-on control. Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3hour block period at or above the highest average carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. Collecting the stack temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); and maintaining the stack temperature at or below the highest stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no addon control. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart for glaze spray operations equipped with a FF. 7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 7 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with WS. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped with a water curtain. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 8 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with a water curtain. 9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 9 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with baffles. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 10 of Table 2 to this subpart for spray dryers. 10. Spray dryer ............................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the stack. ii. If your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the health-based standard in Table 1 to this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3-hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8595(g)(1). iii. Collecting the stack temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); and maintaining the stack temperature at or below the highest stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the FF stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the FF stack. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. i. Conducting daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system; and ii. Conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks; and iii. Conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. Conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place. Collecting the operating temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 11. Floor tile press dryer ................. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 11 of Table 2 to this subpart for floor tile press dryers.. 12. Sanitaryware shuttle kiln ........... a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... Collecting the operating temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. i. Maintaining records documenting your use of natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; and ii. If you intend to use an alternative fuel, submitting a notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in § 63.8665; and iii. Submitting a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel, as specified in § 63.8635(g); and iv. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and v. For each firing load, documenting the total tonnage of greenware placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 to this subpart; and vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vii. Developing and maintaining records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, as specified in § 63.8640. As stated in § 63.8545, you must meet each compliance date in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 8 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—COMPLIANCE DATES If you have a(n) . . . Then you must . . . No later than . . . 1. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 18, 2014, but before December 28, 2015. 2. New or reconstructed affected source and the initial startup of your affected source is after December 28, 2015. 3. Existing affected source ................................. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart. December 28, 2015. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart. Be in compliance with this subpart .................. Initial startup of your affected source. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 4. Existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing. 5. New area source (i.e., an area source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP. Be in compliance with this subpart .................. December 26, 2018. Initial startup of your affected source as a major source. Initial startup of your affected source as a major source. As stated in § 63.8630, you must submit each notification that applies to you according to the following table: TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . . 1. Start up your affected source before December 28, 2015. Submit an Initial Notification ......... June 22, 2016 ............................... § 63.9(b)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65567 TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS—Continued If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . . 2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after December 28, 2015. 3. Are required to conduct a performance test. Submit an Initial Notification ......... 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart. § 63.9(b)(2). Submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test. § 63.7(b)(1). 4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart. 5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required in Table 6 to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards). 6. Request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard according to § 63.8570(d). 7. Own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln. Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results. 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. 60 calendar days following the completion of the performance test, by the close of business. Submit a Notification of Compliance Status. 30 calendar days following the completion of the compliance demonstrations, by the close of business. § 63.9(h). Submit your request ..................... 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in § 63.8545. Submit a notification of alternative fuel use. 48 hours following the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in § 63.8665. § 63.9(h) and § 63.10(d)(2). As stated in § 63.8635, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: TABLE 10 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. A compliance report ....................................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or work practice standards that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period. b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in § 63.8635(c)(8). If there were periods during which the CMS was out-of-control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in § 63.8635(d). The information in § 63.8635(g) ....................... Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8635(b). asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 2. A report of alternative fuel use ....................... As stated in § 63.8655, you must comply with the General Provisions in VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8635(b). If you are subject to the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart, and you use an alternative fuel to fire an affected kiln, by letter within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. §§ 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 65568 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 11 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK Citation Subject Brief description § 63.1 .................................. Applicability ........................ § 63.2 § 63.3 § 63.4 § 63.5 Definitions .......................... Units and Abbreviations .... Prohibited Activities ........... Construction/Reconstruction. Applicability ........................ Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Definitions for part 63 standards ................................... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards .............. Compliance date; circumvention; severability ............... Applicability; applications; approvals ............................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. § 63.6(a) .............................. § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................... § 63.6(b)(5) ......................... § 63.6(b)(6) ......................... § 63.6(b)(7) ......................... § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................... § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................... § 63.6(c)(5) .......................... Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Notification ......................... [Reserved]. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. § 63.6(d) .............................. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...................... [Reserved] ......................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. [Reserved] ......................... Operation & Maintenance § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..................... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ..................... § 63.6(f)(1) .......................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................... § 63.6(g) .............................. § 63.6(h) .............................. § 63.6(i) ............................... § 63.6(j) ............................... § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ................... § 63.7(a)(3) ......................... § 63.7(a)(4) ......................... § 63.7(b)(1) ......................... § 63.7(b)(2) ......................... § 63.7(c) .............................. § 63.7(d) .............................. § 63.7(e)(1) ......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were area sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. ........................................................................................ Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). ........................................................................................ General Duty to minimize emissions ............................ Yes. Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP ................. Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations. [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ Startup, Shutdown, and Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction Malfunction Plan (SSMP). (SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP. Compliance Except During You must comply with emission standards at all times SSM. except during SSM. Methods for Determining Compliance based on performance test, operation and Compliance. maintenance plans, records, inspection. Alternative Standard .......... Procedures for getting an alternative standard ............. Opacity/VE Standards ....... Requirements for opacity and VE standards ................ Compliance Extension ....... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Presidential Compliance President may exempt source category ....................... Exemption. Performance Test Dates ... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations for emission limits and work practice standards; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Section 114 Authority ........ Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Notification of Delay in Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testPerformance Testing ing due to force majeure. Due To Force Majeure. Notification of Performance Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ........ Test. Notification of ReschedMust notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled uling. date of rescheduled date. Quality Assurance (QA)/ Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performTest Plan. ance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Testing Facilities ................ Requirements for testing facilities ................................. Conditions for Conducting Performance tests must be conducted under repPerformance Tests. resentative conditions. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Yes. General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Operation & Maintenance Operation & Maintenance § 63.6(e)(2) ......................... § 63.6(e)(3) ......................... asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Applies to subpart KKKKK? Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. See § 63.8570(b) for general duty requirement. No. Yes. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, § 63.8595 specifies requirements. Yes. Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65569 TABLE 11 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued Citation Subject Brief description § 63.7(e)(2)–(3) ................... Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. § 63.7(e)(4) ......................... Testing under Section 114 § 63.7(f) ............................... Alternative Test Method .... § 63.7(g) .............................. Performance Test Data Analysis. § 63.7(h) .............................. Waiver of Tests ................. § 63.8(a)(1) ......................... § 63.8(a)(2) ......................... Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Performance Specifications Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative; must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart ........ § 63.8(a)(3) ......................... § 63.8(a)(4) ......................... § 63.8(b)(1) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Monitoring .......................... § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Routine and Predictable SSM. SSM not in SSMP ............. § 63.8(c)(1) .......................... § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...................... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...................... § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ..................... § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................... § 63.8(c)(4) .......................... § 63.8(c)(5) .......................... § 63.8(c)(6) .......................... § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ................... § 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ............. § 63.8(d)(3) ......................... § 63.8(e) .............................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................... § 63.8(f)(6) .......................... § 63.8(g) § 63.9(a) § 63.9(b) § 63.9(c) .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES § 63.9(d) .............................. § 63.9(e) .............................. § 63.9(f) ............................... § 63.9(g)(1) ......................... § 63.9(g)(2)–(3) ................... § 63.9(h) .............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. Monitoring System Installation. CMS Requirements ........... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. CMS Requirements ........... CMS Requirements ........... CMS Quality Control ......... CMS Quality Control ......... CMS Performance Evaluation. Alternative Monitoring Method. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Data Reduction .................. Notification Requirements Initial Notifications ............. Request for Compliance Extension. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. Notification of Performance Test. Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of Compliance Status. 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Applies to subpart KKKKK? Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. ........................................................................................ Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ...................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems. Maintenance consistent with good air pollution control practices. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSMP. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements. Requirements for CMS .................................................. COMS minimum procedures ......................................... Zero and high level calibration check requirements ..... Out-of-control periods .................................................... Requirements for CMS quality control .......................... Written procedures for CMS ......................................... Requirements for CMS performance evaluation ........... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No, § 63.8600 specifies requirements. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, § 63.8575(b)(9) specifies requirements. Yes. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy test for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements ........... Applicability; State delegation ....................................... Requirements for initial notifications ............................. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Notify Administrator 60 days prior ................................. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Notify Administrator 30 days prior ................................. No, not applicable. Notification of performance evaluation .......................... Yes. Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded. Contents; submittal requirements ................................. No, not applicable. Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. 65570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 11 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued Citation Subject Brief description § 63.9(i) ............................... Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Must submit within 15 days after the change ............... Yes. Applicability; general information .................................. General requirements .................................................... Yes. Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Change in Previous Information. Recordkeeping/Reporting .. General Recordkeeping Requirements. Records Related to SSM .. No. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard .............. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ............ § 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xii) and (xiv). § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................. Records Related to SSM .. Records Related to SSM .. CMS Records .................... § 63.10(b)(3) ....................... § 63.10(c)(1)–(15) ............... Records ............................. Records ............................. § 63.10(d)(1) and (2) ........... § 63.10(d)(4) ....................... General Reporting Requirements. Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Progress Reports .............. § 63.10(d)(5) ....................... SSM Reports ..................... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Contents and submission .............................................. § 63.10(e)(1)–(3) ................. Additional CMS Reports .... Requirements for CMS reporting .................................. § 63.10(e)(4) ....................... Reporting COMS data ....... § 63.10(f) ............................. Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Flares ................................. Delegation ......................... Addresses .......................... Incorporation by Reference Availability of Information .. Performance Track Provisions. Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data. Procedures for Administrator to waive .......................... § 63.9(j) ............................... § 63.10(a) ............................ § 63.10(b)(1) ....................... § 63.10(d)(3) ....................... § 63.11 § 63.12 § 63.13 § 63.14 § 63.15 § 63.16 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ Records ............................. Applies to subpart KKKKK? Maintenance records ..................................................... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ........ Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or out-of-control. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. Applicability Determinations .......................................... Additional records for CMS ........................................... Requirements for reporting; performance test results reporting. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE .................. Requirement for flares ................................................... State authority to enforce standards ............................. Addresses for reports, notifications, requests ............... Materials incorporated by reference ............................. Information availability; confidential information ........... Requirements for Performance Track member facilities [FR Doc. 2015–25724 Filed 10–23–15; 8:45 am] asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3 Yes. No. See § 63.8640(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. Yes. No. Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. No, §§ 63.8575 and 63.8640 specify requirements. Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. No. See § 63.8635(c)(8) for malfunction reporting requirements. No, §§ 63.8575 and 63.8635 specify requirements. No, not applicable. Yes. No, not applicable. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65469-65570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25724]

[[Page 65469]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 206

October 26, 2015

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP
for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65470]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9933-13-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP69

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and
NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and NESHAP for
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All major sources in these categories must
meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury
(Hg), non-mercury (non-Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or
particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics
only); health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and work practice
standards, where applicable. The final rule, which has been informed by
input from industry (including small businesses), environmental groups,
and other stakeholders, protects air quality and promotes public health
by reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This action is effective on December 28, 2015. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of December 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents
in the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule for
BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon
Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Program
Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-2825; Fax number: (919) 541-5450;
Email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. This preamble includes several
acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data
inventories and risk modeling. While this list may not be exhaustive,
to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the
EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
APCD air pollution control device
ASOS Automated Surface Observing Systems
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BIA Brick Industry Association
BLD bag leak detection
BSCP Brick and Structural Clay Products
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CASRN Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cl2 chlorine
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
CRA Congressional Review Act
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter
DLA dry limestone adsorber
DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter
DOD Department of Defense
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FF fabric filter
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HBEL health-based emission limit
HCl hydrogen chloride
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1)
HF hydrogen fluoride
Hg mercury
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICR information collection request
IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
lb/hr pounds per hour
lb/ton pounds per ton
LML lowest measured level
LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level
LOEL lowest observed effects level
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per year
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/kg nanograms per kilogram
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
No. number
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAEL no observed adverse effect level
Non-Hg non-mercury
NOX nitrogen oxides
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NWS National Weather Service
O2 oxygen
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring
OMB Office of Management and Budget
%R percent recovery
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5
micrometers in diameter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SBE Standard Brick Equivalent
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

[[Page 65471]]

SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
TEQ 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalents
TOSHI target-organ-specific hazard index
tph tons per hour
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
[micro]g/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VE visible emissions
yr year

Background Information Documents. On December 18, 2014, the EPA
proposed NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing (79 FR 75622). In this action, we are finalizing the
rules. Documents summarizing the public comments on the proposal and
presenting the EPA responses to those comments are available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing.
Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule?
B. What actions preceded this final rule?
C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the
BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP Manufacturing?
B. What are the final rule requirements for Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing?
C. What are the requirements during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction?
D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
E. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1
CFR part 51?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale
A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP?
B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP?
C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since
proposal?
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
A. Health-Based Standards
B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts?
B. What are the secondary impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the benefits?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions
standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and
subcategory listed under section 112(c). We issued the NESHAP for BSCP
Manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing on May 16,
2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and remanded by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13,
2007. To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are
issuing standards for BSCP manufacturing facilities and clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities located at major sources.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions
a. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for non-Hg HAP metals
(or PM surrogate) and Hg, and a health-based emission limit (HBEL) for
acid gases (hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and
chlorine (Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA
is finalizing work practice standards for periodic kilns, dioxins/
furans from tunnel kilns, and periods of startup and shutdown for
tunnel kilns. To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, the
EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5-year performance testing for the
regulated pollutants, parameter monitoring, and daily visible emissions
(VE) checks. Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with
a fabric filter (FF) (e.g., dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF),
dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF)) have the option of
demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detection (BLD) system or
daily VE checks.
b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for Hg, PM (surrogate
for non-Hg HAP metals), and dioxins/furans and HBEL for acid gases (HF
and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile roller kilns.
In addition, the EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for dioxins/
furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers, MACT
emission limits for Hg and PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for
ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for
non-Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. The EPA is also
finalizing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and periods of
startup and shutdown. To demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits, the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5-year performance
testing for the regulated pollutants, parameter monitoring, and daily
VE checks. Owners/operators whose affected sources are equipped with an
FF (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance
using a BLD system or daily VE checks.
3. Costs and Benefits
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of this
action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP),
while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of this action for
40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). See
section VI of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and
benefits for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. See section VII.B of this preamble for
discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.

[[Page 65472]]

Table 1--Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ
(Millions of 2011 dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net benefit (7 percent
Requirement Capital cost Annual cost discount). \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission controls.......................... $62.3 $23.7 $48 to 150.
Emissions testing.......................... 2.26 0.552
Monitoring................................. -- 0.352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Net benefit is the annual cost subtracted from the total monetized benefits (at a 7-percent discount rate).
For more information, see section 7 of ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products
NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Table 2--Summary of the Costs of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart KKKKK
(Millions of 2011 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Capital cost Annual cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission controls................. $0 $0
Emissions testing................. 0.267 0.0655
Monitoring........................ -- 0.0269
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action are shown in Table 3 of this preamble:

Table 3-- Neshap and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS Code \a\ potentially
\b\ regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 327120 Brick, structural
clay, and extruded
tile manufacturing
facilities (BSCP
Manufacturing
NESHAP); and
ceramic wall and
floor tile
manufacturing
facilities (Clay
Ceramics
Manufacturing
NESHAP).
327110 Vitreous plumbing
fixtures
(sanitaryware)
manufacturing
facilities (Clay
Ceramics
Manufacturing
NESHAP).
Federal government.............. ................. Not affected.
State/local/tribal government... ................. Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ Refractories manufacturing is not included in the source categories
affected by this action.

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, company, business,
organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 CFR 63.8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact either the
delegated authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology
Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature
by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html. Following publication in
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of
the final rule and key technical documents at this same Web site.

D. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
December 28, 2015. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC North
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy
to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 65473]]

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule?

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions
standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and
subcategory listed under section 112(c). The MACT standards for
existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the
best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30
sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum
stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards
must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice
by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA
also must consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options.
When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must not only
consider the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must
also take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts
when doing so.

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required
to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing source categories by November 2000. The agency initially
promulgated standards for these categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690
(May 16, 2003). Those standards were challenged and subsequently
vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876
(D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section
304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to
promulgate standards for these categories under CAA section 112 based
on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged
that claim in a motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to
act by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the
2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to
act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the Court found that the vacatur
of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty to set standards by 2000
and held that Sierra Club's claims could continue. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then
negotiated a consent decree to settle the litigation and establish
proposal and promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for
these categories.
Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA began efforts
to collect additional data to support new standards for the BSCP and
clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an initial information
collection effort in 2008 to update information on the inventory of
affected units, hereafter referred to as ``the 2008 EPA survey.'' The
EPA conducted a second information collection effort in 2010 to obtain
additional emissions data and information on each facility's startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) procedures, hereafter referred to as
``the 2010 EPA survey.'' The information collected as part of these
surveys, and not claimed as CBI by respondents, is available in Docket
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. In addition, the
dockets A-99-30 and OAR-2002-0054 are incorporated by reference for
BSCP. The dockets A-2000-48, OAR-2002-0055, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424
are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics.
On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP
Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. See 79 FR
75622 (December 18, 2014). In response to a request from industry, the
EPA extended the public comment period for the proposed action from
February 17, 2015, to March 19, 2015. See 79 FR 78768 (December 31,
2014). In this action, the EPA is finalizing the rule.

C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the BSCP
Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?

The final rule protects air quality and promotes the public health
by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns.
Emissions data collected during development of the final rule show that
acid gases such as HF, HCl, and Cl2 represent the
predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay ceramics kilns, accounting for
99.3 percent of the total HAP emissions. These kilns also emit lesser
amounts of other HAP compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans,
accounting for about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals
emitted include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, manganese, Hg, nickel and selenium. Exposure to these
HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse
health effects could include chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation
of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous
system and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders (e.g.,
lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and
vomiting, and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We
have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and
chromium VI) and four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead,
dioxins/furans and nickel).

III. Summary of the Final Rule

The following sections summarize the final requirements for the
BSCP Manufacturing source category and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
source category. Section IV of this preamble summarizes the major
changes since proposal.

A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP Manufacturing?

1. What source category is affected by the final rule?
The final NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing applies to BSCP
manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major
source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source category
includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick,
structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay pipe; roof tile;
extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay
products.
2. What are the affected sources?
The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the
category for which we are setting standards, are (1) all tunnel kilns
at a BSCP manufacturing facility and (2) each periodic kiln. For
purposes of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, tunnel kilns are
defined to include any type of continuous kiln used at BSCP
manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns.
Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, including
sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer
because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before
it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns
have two process streams, including (1) a process stream that exhausts
directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution control device
(APCD), and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to
a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to
the

[[Page 65474]]

atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to the requirements of the
final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP.
The following BSCP process units are not subject to the
requirements of the final rule: (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for
setting glazes on previously fired products, (2) raw material
processing and handling, and (3) dryers. Sources regulated under the
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing
NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of the BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP.
3. Does the final rule apply to me?
This final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP applies to owners or operators
of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements
discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions
is any 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, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more
of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet?
Emission limitations. We are providing a choice of emission limits
for total non-Hg HAP metals and Hg for new and existing tunnel kilns in
two subcategories based on kiln size. In this final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP, a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln
with a design capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater, and a
small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a
design capacity of less than 10 tph. The options for total non-Hg HAP
metals include total non-Hg HAP metals limits in units of pounds per
hour (lb/hr) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP
metals in units of pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 17-percent oxygen (O2). The options
for Hg include emission limits in units of lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms
per dry standard cubic meter ([micro]g/dscm) at 17-percent
O2. We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent
for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the
acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2. The emission limits for acid
gases, Hg, and non-Hg HAP metals are presented in Table 4 of this
preamble.

Table 4--Acid Gases, Total Non-Mercury HAP Metals and Mercury Emission Limits for Brick and Structural Clay
Products Tunnel Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Acid gases Total non-Hg HAP metals Hg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits for existing sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns (>= 10 tph)....... -- 0.036 lb/ton PM OR 4.1 E-05 lb/ton OR 5.5
0.0029 gr/dscf PM at E-04 lb/hr OR 7.7
17-percent O2 OR [micro]g/dscm at 17-
0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg percent O2 for each
HAP metals for each existing large tunnel
existing tunnel kiln kiln at facility
at facility.
Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph)........ -- 0.37 lb/ton PM OR 3.3 E-04 lb/ton OR
0.0021 gr/dscf PM at 0.0019 lb/hr OR 91
17-percent O2 OR 0.11 [micro]g/dscm at 17-
lb/hr non-Hg HAP percent O2 for each
metals for each existing small tunnel
existing tunnel kiln kiln at facility
at facility.
All tunnel kilns..................... 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent -- --
for collection of all
tunnel kilns at
facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits for new sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns (>= 10 tph)....... -- 0.018 lb/ton PM OR 2.8 E-05 lb/ton OR 3.4
0.0014 gr/dscf PM at E-04 lb/hr OR 6.2
17-percent O2 OR [micro]g/dscm at 17-
0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg percent O2 for each
HAP metals for each new large tunnel kiln
new tunnel kiln at at facility
facility.
Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph)........ -- 0.030 lb/ton PM OR 3.3 E-04 lb/ton OR
0.0021 gr/dscf PM at 0.0019 lb/hr OR 91
17-percent O2 OR 0.11 [micro]g/dscm at 17-
lb/hr non-Hg HAP percent O2 for each
metals for each new new small tunnel kiln
tunnel kiln at at facility
facility.
All tunnel kilns..................... 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent -- --
for collection of all
tunnel kilns at
facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work practice standards. We are issuing work practice standards for
BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice
standards require developing and using a designed firing time and
temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln
with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the
kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed
in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the
maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for
each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and
developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, including
logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the
periodic kilns.
We are also issuing work practice standards for BSCP tunnel kilns
in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work practice standards
require maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated
combustion controls (as applicable); tuning the specific burner type to
optimize combustion; keeping records of each burner tune-up; and
submitting a report for each tune-up conducted. As discussed in section
III.C.1.a of this preamble, we are also issuing work practice standards
for periods of startup and shutdown.

[[Page 65475]]

5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources
subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using
specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all
applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before
renewing the facility's 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least
every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when
an operating limit parameter value is being revised.
Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or operator is
required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg and PM (or
non-Hg HAP metals). We are requiring that the owner or operator measure
HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following methods:
EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8;
EPA Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, when
no acid particulate (e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2 dissolved in water
droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
EPA Method 320, ``Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and
Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A,
provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of section 13
of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the
complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
Any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
Following the performance test, the owner or operator must
calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using Equation 2 in 40 CFR
63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner
or operator must sum the HCl-equivalent for each kiln using Equation 3
in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent
and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases.
As noted above, with respect to non-Hg HAP metals, the owner or
operator of a source can choose to meet either a non-Hg HAP metals
limit or one of two alternative PM limits. If the owner or operator
chooses to comply with one of the two PM emission limits rather than
the non-Hg HAP metals limit, we are requiring that the owner or
operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods:
EPA Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;
EPA Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions From
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8; or
Any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
If the owner or operator chooses to comply with the non-Hg HAP
metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limits, the
owner or operator must measure non-Hg HAP metals emissions using EPA
Method 29 cited above or any other alternative method that has been
approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General
Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other
approved alternative method to measure Hg emissions.
The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance
requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or
operator is required to install the continuous parameter monitoring
system (CPMS) equipment (as discussed in section III.A.6 of this
preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must
use the CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values that
represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator
ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test
and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for
the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or
operator is required to determine the average feed rate from the three
test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum
site-specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average
feed rate values during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/
Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the
site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the owner or
operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD
systems.
For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a
BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA
guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are requiring that the owner
or operator continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA
during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and determine the 3-
hour block average pressure drop. The average of the three test runs
establishes the minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit.
Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the
bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during the
performance test. The owner or operator also must maintain an adequate
amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at
the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or
operator is required to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a
per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test
and maintain the feeder setting for the 1-week period that precedes the
performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or
operator must document the source and grade of the limestone used
during the performance test.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator
continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH during the HF/HCl/
Cl2 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate
during both the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2
performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or
operator is required to determine and record the average values for the
three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average of the
three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific liquid pH and
liquid flow rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber
liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals
and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values
become the site-specific operating limit.
For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we are requiring
that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate
during the Hg performance test and determine the 3-hour block average
flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum
site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit.
For a source with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the
owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using
Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator must use
the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the
maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design

[[Page 65476]]

capacity of the kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the
performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent
of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a
facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl-
equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential
HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. If
the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the
HBEL, we are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum
process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent remains at or below the HBEL. If there are multiple kilns,
the owner or operator must determine one or more combinations of
maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential
HCl-equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL. The maximum process
rate(s) becomes the operating limit(s) for process rate.
6. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or
operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the
requirements in the operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan
and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must
also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established
during the initial performance test as described in the following
paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes,
including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at
least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per
hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate
the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or
operator must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including
inspections, calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an
inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the
recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the
3-hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate
the average for each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or operator
must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator
demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL
by maintaining free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the
APCD at all times. If lime is not flowing freely, according to load
cell output, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop
measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly
initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan.
The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per
ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during
the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and record the feeder
setting once each shift.
The final rule provides the option to use either a BLD system or VE
monitoring to demonstrate parametric compliance.
For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or
operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner
or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm
is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time
fraction, the owner or operator must not count any alarm time if
inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is
required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must
count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If corrective action is
initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the owner or operator must
count as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate
corrective action.
For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that if VE are
observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7, the owner or operator must promptly conduct an
opacity test, according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4. If opacity greater than 10 percent if observed, the
owner or operator must initiate and complete corrective actions
according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive
daily Method 22 tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed
during any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack, the owner or
operator may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to
weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test
and opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent
Method 9 test, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and
complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan, resume testing
of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed
in 30 consecutive daily tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is
observed during any of the Method 9 tests, at which time the owner or
operator may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a
weekly basis.
If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test
conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, the owner or
operator must report these deviations by following the requirements in
40 CFR 63.8485.
In lieu of conducting VE tests as described above, the owner or
operator may conduct a PM test at least once every year following the
initial performance test, according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-3, and the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8445(e) and
(f)(1).
For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator
use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate
parametric compliance.
For a DLA, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate
compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL by collecting
and recording data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the
data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must maintain the
average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or
above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/
Cl2 performance test. Alternatively, the owner or operator
may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper position at least once
every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation. Any period in which the
bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA
triggers corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or
operator also must verify that the limestone hopper, storage bin
(located at the top of the DLA) and DLA contain an adequate amount of
limestone by performing a daily visual check of the limestone hopper
and the storage bin. A daily visual check could include one of the
following: (1) Conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating
a visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3)
installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a
video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level
indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional
limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not contain adequate
limestone, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete
corrective actions

[[Page 65477]]

according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must record the
limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to
verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the
level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.
The owner or operator also must use the same grade of limestone from
the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2
performance test and maintain records of the source and type of
limestone. Finally, the owner or operator must monitor VE, as described
in the previous paragraph.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator
continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber liquid pH
and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values
established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3-
hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or above the minimum value
established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test
demonstrates compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL.
Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at
or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM/non-Hg HAP
metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests demonstrates
compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the
scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator
demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously
monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or
above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test.
For sources with no APCD, we are requiring that the owner or
operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with
the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In addition, if the last
calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at
or below the HBEL for acid gases, then we are requiring that the owner
or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the
kiln and reduce the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or
operator must maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln
process rate operating limit(s) that enables the total facility maximum
potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL.
7. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are identified in Table 10 of subpart JJJJJ. The General
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping and reporting.
Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of
compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General
Provisions. The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires the owner or
operator to include in the notification of compliance status report
certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual
compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are
also required for each semiannual reporting period.
The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires records to demonstrate
compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These
recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General
Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 8 of subpart
JJJJJ.
Specifically, we are requiring that the owner or operator keep the
following records:
All reports and notifications submitted to comply with the
final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP.
Records of performance tests.
Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of
approved routine control device maintenance.
Continuous monitoring data as required in the final BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP.
Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
Records of each instance in which the owner or operator
did not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating
limits).
Records of production rates.
Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing
procedures.
Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the
APCD.
Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting
conformance.
Logs of the information required to document compliance
with the periodic kiln work practice standard.
Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the dioxin/
furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
Logs of the information required to document compliance
with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
Records of each malfunction and the corrective action
taken.
Records of parameters and procedures followed for work
practice standards.
We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the
following reports and notifications:
Notifications required by the General Provisions.
Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after
the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.
Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or
other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days
following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a
performance test.
Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days
following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not
include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstrations for the
work practice standards).
Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of
the most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply with the dioxin/
furan work practice standard and a report of each malfunction resulting
in an exceedance and the corrective action taken.
Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days
of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer-to-
computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software for data
collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this
preamble for more information).

B. What are the final rule requirements for Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing?

1. What source category is affected by the final rule?
This final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing applies to clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a
major source of HAP emissions. The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source
category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile,
pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware (e.g.,
toilets and sinks).
2. What are the affected sources?
The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the
category for which we are setting standards, are (1) each ceramic tile
roller kiln; (2) each floor tile press dryer; (3) each ceramic tile
spray dryer; (4) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying; (5)
each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; (6) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and
(7) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth.
The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the
requirements

[[Page 65478]]

of the final rule: (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used
exclusively for refiring; (2) tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are
used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products; (3)
glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns
listed in items 1 and 2 above; (4) process units listed in items 1
through 3 above that are permitted to, but do not, process first-fire
ware, until such time as they begin to process first-fire ware; (5)
refire shuttle kilns that fire no more than four batches per year of
first-fire ware; (6) glaze spray operations that on average use wet
glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight
basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year; (7) raw material
processing and handling; (8) wall tile press dryers; and (9)
sanitaryware ware dryers. Sources regulated under the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are not
subject to the requirements of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.
3. Does the final rule apply to me?
This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP applies to owners or
operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the
requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of
HAP emissions is any 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, 10 tpy or more of any
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet?
Emission limitations. We are issuing emission limits for PM as a
surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals (in units of lb/ton) for all new
and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and
ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations. We are issuing
emission limits for Hg (lb/ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile
roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns.
We are issuing emission limits for dioxin/furan (nanograms of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQ) per kilogram (ng/
kg)) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware
tunnel kilns, floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We
are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all existing
and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid
gases HF and HCl. The emission limits are presented in Table 5 of this
preamble.

Table 5--Emission Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid gases
(lb/hr HCl- PM \b\ (lb/ Dioxins/furans
Subcategory equivalent) Hg (lb/ton) ton) (ng/kg) \c\
\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits for existing sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns......................... 140 1.3 E-04 0.13 2.8
Floor tile press dryers......................... .............. .............. .............. 0.024
Floor tile spray dryers......................... .............. .............. .............. 19
Wall tile roller kilns.......................... 140 2.1 E-04 0.37 0.22
Wall tile spray dryers.......................... .............. .............. .............. 0.058
Tile glaze lines................................ .............. 1.6 E-04 1.9 ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns............ 140 2.6 E-04 0.34 3.3
Sanitaryware manual glaze application........... .............. .............. 35 ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application.... .............. .............. 13 ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze application............ .............. .............. 8.9 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limits for new sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns......................... 140 3.9 E-05 0.037 1.3
Floor tile press dryers......................... .............. .............. .............. 0.024
Floor tile spray dryers......................... .............. .............. .............. 0.071
Wall tile roller kilns.......................... 140 2.1 E-04 0.37 0.22
Wall tile spray dryers.......................... .............. .............. .............. 0.058
Tile glaze lines................................ .............. 1.6 E-04 0.61 ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns............ 140 1.3 E-04 0.095 0.99
Sanitaryware manual glaze application........... .............. .............. 3.9 ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application.... .............. .............. 3.2 ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze application............ .............. .............. 2.3 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limit applies to collection of all kilns at facility.
\b\ PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.
\c\ ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram.

Work practice standards. We are issuing work practice standards in
lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP
metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice standards
require using natural gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during
periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; developing
and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each shuttle
kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of
throughput (greenware) that can be fired in the kiln during a single
firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage of greenware placed in the
kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum
load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln
that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and
developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including
logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the
shuttle kilns. As discussed in section III.C.1.b of this preamble, we
are also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and
shutdown.
5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources
subject to emission limits conduct an initial

[[Page 65479]]

performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate
initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance
test must be conducted before renewing the facility's 40 CFR part 70
operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial
performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is
being revised.
Under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or
operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a
surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or
operator must measure HF and HCl from ceramic tile roller kilns and
sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using one of the following
methods:
EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8;
EPA Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, when
no acid particulate (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets
emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
EPA Method 320, ``Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and
Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A,
provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of section 13
of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the
complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
Any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
Following the performance test, the owner or operator must
calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using Equation 4 in 40 CFR
63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner
or operator must sum the HCl-equivalent for each kiln using Equation 5
in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent
and compare this value to the HBEL.
We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions
from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns
using one of the following methods:
EPA Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;
EPA Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions From
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8; or
Any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also be used
to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, ceramic tile
glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns.
We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions
from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method
5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
We are also requiring that the owner or operator measure dioxin/
furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers, floor
tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using EPA
Method 23, ``Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7 or any other alternative method that has been approved
by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance
requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or
operator is required to install the CPMS equipment (as discussed in
section III.B.6 of this preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the
owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site-specific
operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator
ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance test and record the
feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test
runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator is required
to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific
feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed rate
values during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average
values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is
present, the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance
and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a
BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA
guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator
continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH during the HF/HCl
performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM
and HF/HCl performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the
owner or operator is required to determine and record the average
values for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific
liquid pH and liquid flow rate operating limits. If different average
wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and HF/
HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the site-specific
operating limits.
For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator
measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg and dioxin/furan
performance tests and determine the 3-hour block average flow rate. The
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific
activated carbon flow rate operating limit. If different average
activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and
dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site-
specific operating limit.
If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan
emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner
or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln
during the dioxin/furan performance test. The highest 4-hour average
stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site-
specific operating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the
operating temperatures of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile
press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the
3-hour block average temperature. The average of the three test runs
establishes the site-specific operating limit.
For sources with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner
or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using
Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator must use
the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the
maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of
the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the
performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent
of the

[[Page 65480]]

maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility,
the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for
each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent
and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. If the total
facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the HBEL, we
are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process
rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent
remains at or below the HBEL. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or
operator must determine one or more combinations of maximum process
rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent
that remains at or below the HBEL. The maximum process rate(s) becomes
the operating limit(s) for process rate. We are also requiring that the
owner or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller
kiln during the dioxin/furan performance test. The highest 4-hour
average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the
maximum site-specific operating limit. The owner or operator must also
measure the operating temperatures of the ceramic tile spray dryer and
floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and
determine the 3-hour block average temperature. The average of the
three test runs establishes the site-specific operating limit.
6. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
The final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the
owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the
requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M
plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the
operating parameters established during the initial performance test as
described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at
least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four equally spaced
data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data
values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or
operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is
operating. The owner or operator must also conduct proper maintenance
of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation checks,
and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the
CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate
and record the 3-hour block average values of each operating parameter.
To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or
operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for
that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator
demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL by maintaining
free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all
times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load
cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop
measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly
initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan.
The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per
ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the
performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the final rule provides the option to use
either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate parametric
compliance.
For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or
operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner
or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm
is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time
fraction, if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective
action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is
required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and if
corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the
alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to
initiate corrective action.
For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that the owner or
operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in accordance with
the procedures of EPA Method 22, ``Visual Determination of Fugitive
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,'' 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7. During the VE observations, the source must
be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or
operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions
according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive
daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may decrease the
frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that
source. If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner or
operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions
according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator must resume EPA
Method 22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are
observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or
operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a
weekly basis.
For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator
use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate
parametric compliance.
For a wet scrubber on a tunnel or roller kiln, we are requiring
that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block
averages for scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid flow rate at or
above the minimum values established during the applicable performance
test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or
above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl performance test
demonstrates compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL. Maintaining
the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the
lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl performance
tests demonstrates compliance with all applicable emission limits by
showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator
demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limits by
continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining
it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and
dioxin/furan performance tests.
If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan
emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner
or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the stack
temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and the operating temperature
of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and
maintaining it at or below the highest 4-hour average temperature
during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln,
at or above the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance
test for the ceramic tile spray dryer, and at or below the average
temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile
press dryer.
For a wet scrubber on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring
that the

[[Page 65481]]

owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for
scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the
minimum values established during the applicable performance test.
Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or
above the minimum value established during the PM performance test
demonstrates compliance with the PM emission limit. Maintaining the 3-
hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the
minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrates
compliance with the PM emission limit by showing that the scrubber is
in proper working order.
For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring
that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission
limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify the presence of water
flow to the wet control system, conducting weekly visual inspections of
the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conducting
annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if
applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the
control equipment.
For baffles on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the
owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by
conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the
baffles are in place.
For a source with no APCD, we are requiring that, to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emission limit, the owner or operator monitor VE
as described above. We are also requiring that, to demonstrate
compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator
continuously monitor the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln
and operating temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor
tile press dryer and maintain it at or below the highest 4-hour average
stack temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the
tunnel or roller kiln, at or above the average operating temperature
during the dioxin/furan performance test for the ceramic tile spray
dryer, and at or below the average operating temperature during the
dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer. In
addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid gases, then we are
requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data
documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce
the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must maintain
the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process rate operating
limit(s) that enables the total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL.
7. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are identified in Table 11 of subpart KKKKK. The General
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping and reporting.
Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of
compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General
Provisions. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires the
owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status
report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual
compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are
also required for each semiannual reporting period.
This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires records to
demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice
standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in
the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9
of subpart KKKKK.
Specifically, we are requiring that the owner or operator must keep
the following records:
All reports and notifications submitted to comply with
this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.
Records of performance tests.
Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of
approved routine control device maintenance.
Continuous monitoring data as required in this final Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.
Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet
each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating limits).
Records of production rates.
Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing
procedures.
Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the
APCD.
Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting
conformance.
Logs of the information required to document compliance
with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
Logs of the information required to document compliance
with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
Records of each malfunction and the corrective action
taken.
Records of parameters and procedures followed for work
practice standards.
We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the
following reports and notifications:
Notifications required by the General Provisions.
Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after
the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.
Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or
other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days
following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a
performance test.
Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days
following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not
include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstration for the work
practice standard).
Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of
each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective action
taken.
Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days
after terminating use of the alternative fuel.
Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days
of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer-to-
computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software for data
collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this
preamble for more information).

C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.

[[Page 65482]]

1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established
standards in this rule that apply at all times. In establishing the
standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and
shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in the preamble to the
proposed rule and in sections IV.A.4 and IV.B.2 of this preamble, has
established alternate standards for those periods.
a. BSCP Manufacturing
The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this
paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns
with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to
determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup kiln car
push rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is
required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD at all
times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet
temperature. In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the
startup kiln car push rate until the kiln exhaust is vented to the
APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator is required to vent the
exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust
temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. In
addition, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as
the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into
the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum
inlet temperature. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the
APCD, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable
continuous compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this
preamble.
The EPA is issuing similar work practice standards for periods of
startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well. As
a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the
product-specific kiln temperature profile and the startup kiln car push
rate of the product. For startup, the startup kiln car push rate may
not be exceeded until the kiln reaches the product-specific kiln
temperature profile. For shutdown, the kiln car push rate is to be
steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln
cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln falls below the
product-specific kiln temperature profile. When the kiln production
rate is greater than the startup kiln car push rate, the owner or
operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous
compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble.
b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this
paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller
kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and
sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or
operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature
and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the owner
or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer
through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or
above the minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the owner or operator
may not exceed the startup production rate of the product until the
kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown,
the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or
dryer through the APCD until the exhaust temperature falls below the
APCD minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the production rate is to
be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln or dryer cools. No additional
throughput may be introduced to the kiln, press dryer and spray dryer
once the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet
temperature. When the exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the
owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous
compliance requirements described in section III.B.6 of this preamble.
The EPA is also issuing work practice standards for periods of
startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns without
an APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to
determine the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile and
the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the startup
production rate may not be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust
temperature reaches the product-specific temperature profile. For
shutdown, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as
the kiln or dryer cools. No additional throughput may be introduced to
the kiln, press dryer and spray dryer once the kiln, press dryer or
spray dryer falls below the product-specific temperature profile. When
the kiln or dryer production rate is greater than the startup
production rate, the owner or operator is required to comply with the
applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section
III.B.6 of this preamble.
2. Periods of Malfunction
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are by
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section
112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than
the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission
standards. As the DC Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average
emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of''
sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is
to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734
F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112
requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.
A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting section CAA 112 standards.
Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a

[[Page 65483]]

problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the
basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the
resources to conduct the perfect study.''') See also, Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of
things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset
provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point,
the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts
of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an APCD with 99-
percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut
down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until
the APCD was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As a result,
the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations.

D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
are effective on December 28, 2015.
If the initial startup of the affected source is after December 18,
2014, but before December 28, 2015, then the compliance date is no
later than December 28, 2015. If the initial startup of the affected
source is after December 28, 2015, then the compliance date is
immediately upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance
date for existing affected sources is no later than December 26, 2018.
The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 calendar
days after the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.8395 for affected
sources of BSCP manufacturing and 40 CFR 63.8545 for affected sources
of clay ceramics manufacturing, according to the provisions in 40 CFR
60.7(a)(2). The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be conducted no
later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and
thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous performance
test. The date to submit performance test data through the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) is within 60 calendar days after the date of
completing each performance test.

E. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?

The EPA is requiring owners or operators of BSCP and clay ceramics
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). As stated in
the proposed preamble, the EPA believes that the electronic submittal
of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the
usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with
current trends in data availability, will further assist in the
protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately
result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting
can also eliminate paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time
and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies,
minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and
accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the
public.
As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, the EPA Web site that
stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, will be easily
accessible to everyone and will provide a user-friendly interface that
any stakeholder could access. By making the records, data and reports
addressed in this rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated
community and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-
required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having
reports readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive
reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time.
We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection
requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology
and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a
decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection
requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack
testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data
electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to
industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews
more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced
burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability
to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased
public health and environmental protection.
Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated
review of the electronically submitted data. Having reports and
associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the
use of software ``search'' options, as well as the downloading and
analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and
review air emission report information electronically will assist air
agencies to

[[Page 65484]]

more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable
regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which
could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies
and the general public.
For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by
this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal. In
summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control
strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having
an electronic database populated with performance test data will save
industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort
while improving the quality of emission inventories, air quality
regulations, and enhancing the public's access to this important
information.

F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part
51?

In this final rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following
documents described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR
approved for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and Table 4 to subpart KKKKK. To
correct an earlier, inadvertent error that exists in the CFR, we are
also adding back in the IBR approval for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1
through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5
to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),
(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart
JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to
subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.8450(e)(1), (9), and (10) and 40 CFR
63.8600(e)(1), (9), and (10).

The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale

The following sections summarize the significant changes made to
the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP, including the rationale for those changes, to respond to public
comments and to correct technical inconsistencies or editorial errors
in the proposal. A detailed discussion of these and other public
comments, as well as other changes not discussed in this section, can
be found in the response-to-comments documents, available in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All changes to the
final rules, including the significant changes discussed in this
section and all other changes not discussed in this section, can also
be found in the redline comparison of the proposed and final regulatory
text, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP
Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing.

A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP?

1. Changes to the Data Set
Following proposal, the EPA learned that two of the facilities in
the inventory at proposal were closed and the kilns were demolished. In
addition, the EPA learned that two of the synthetic area sources in the
inventory at proposal were actually true area sources. These facilities
were removed from the master inventory, and the test data from kilns at
two of these facilities were also removed from the data set. The EPA
learned that a new tunnel kiln had been constructed at a new facility,
and that new facility was added to the inventory. The EPA also received
additional HF, HCl, and PM test data for three kilns, which was added
into the data set.
In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and
found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter
temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5
specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248
25 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (i.e., between 223 and
273[emsp14][deg]F). Test runs with temperatures outside that range were
removed from the data set. (See the memorandum ``Test Data Used in BSCP
Manufacturing Final Rule'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for
more information on this analysis.)
Several public commenters stated that the concentration limits for
PM and Hg should not be corrected to 7-percent O2 because
BSCP kilns operate with a higher O2 content; one commenter
suggested that the EPA use data corrected to 17- percent O2
instead. The EPA evaluated this comment and agrees that 17-percent
O2 is more representative of BSCP kiln operations.
Specifically, the EPA evaluated the O2 content of the run-
by-run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns and found that for
the PM data set, the oxygen content ranged from 9.5 to 20.5 percent,
with an average of 16.8 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run-by-run
O2 values rounded to whole numbers. For the Hg data set, the
oxygen content ranged from 13.1 to 19.5 percent, with an average of
17.2 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run-by-run O2
values rounded to whole numbers. The EPA agrees that correcting
concentration data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7-percent,
as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns' operating
conditions and would not artificially inflate the values. Therefore,
the EPA recalculated the oxygen-corrected PM and Hg test runs to be
corrected to 17-percent instead of 7-percent O2.
2. Changes to the MACT Floor Pool and Calculations
At proposal, the MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg
HAP metals were based on kilns with FF-based APCD, as the EPA
considered those to be the best performing sources in the industry.
However, as noted in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA after
proposal examined the PM test data in an effort to insure that the data
were valid. We found a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe
or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. These
out-of-range temperatures invalidated the test runs, and in some cases,
invalidated entire PM tests, reducing the set of valid, available test
data. Some of the PM test

[[Page 65485]]

data removed from the data set were for kilns controlled with a DIFF.
As a result, the EPA no longer has data on all the kilns with a FF-
based APCD in the industry, which undercuts one of the bases for EPA's
proposal to use the best performing FF-based kilns to set a MACT floor
based on 12 percent of the kilns in the entire category.
In addition, at proposal the EPA requested more data to further
substantiate that kilns with FF-based APCD actually represented the
best performing sources in terms of PM emissions. For example, there
were some data in the record at the time of the proposal suggesting
that in some cases, uncontrolled kilns actually had emissions below the
PM emissions of some kilns with FF-based APCD, which is contrary to
what we would expect. The EPA requested information to explain these
anomalies. However, information was not received during the comment
period sufficient to explain why some kilns without FF-based APCD
emitted at levels as low as or lower than some kilns with FF-based
APCD.
For this reason, and because some of the emissions data on DIFF-
controlled kilns had to be removed from the data pool as discussed
above, the record does not support the conclusion that we have PM
emissions data on all the best performing kilns in the industry. Given
that, we are instead basing the PM MACT floor on 12 percent of the
kilns for which we have emissions data. Therefore, the final MACT floor
pools for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals are not based
on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the 27 best
performing sources). Instead, the final MACT floor limits are based on
the top 12 percent of the sources for which we have emissions data
available in each of the kiln size subcategories, consistent with the
approach described for the proposed alternate non-Hg HAP metals
standards in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR
75649).
In addition, in response to public comments received on the
proposed rule, and consistent with the proposed alternate approach in
section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA has
decided to exercise its discretion to subcategorize for emissions of PM
based on kiln size in the final rule. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA
allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories
or subcategories of sources. Section IV.C of the preamble to the
proposed rule (79 FR 75633) described the EPA's assessment of tunnel
kiln size subcategories. When the EPA recalculated the MACT floor pools
for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals as described in the
previous paragraph, the EPA evaluated subcategorizing by kiln size and
determined it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to
subcategorize in this case. This subcategorization provides additional
flexibility for small tunnel kilns, many of which are operated by small
businesses. Therefore, the final MACT floor limits for PM as a
surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals are based on the best performing
12 percent of the sources in each of the kiln size subcategories with
valid test data (i.e., 12 percent of the data available).
The EPA also proposed two alternative equivalent limits, calculated
based on the same best performing sources ranked by lb/ton, then using
those units' concentration or lb/hr data to calculate the floor. During
the public comment period, the EPA received comments that each
alternative limit should be calculated according to a separate ranking
based on the specific unit of measure. Upon further analysis of the
data sets for each unit of measure, the EPA has found that there are
some differences in the top ranked sources between each unit of measure
data set and thus finds the alternative limits expressed on their own
unit of measure data set ranking to be the most indicative of that data
set's MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA re-ranked the data for each unit
of measurement in each kiln size subcategory separately. The final
alternative equivalent limits are based on the top 12 percent of the
data available in each subcategory according to these revised rankings.
In other words, the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the
concentration data, and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the
lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for that
unit of measurement. In addition, the final lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals
alternative limit is based on a ranking of the non-Hg HAP metals data
rather than the use of conversion factors applied to the PM lb/ton
floor limit, as was done at proposal.
3. Variability Calculation Based on Hg Raw Material Data
At proposal, the EPA developed Hg MACT floors based on the best
performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., the lowest emitting sources of
Hg emissions from test data). However, commenters identified that the
Hg comes from the raw materials used and the Hg content can vary by
location, even within the same quarry. The EPA did not account for this
inherent variability at proposal. The Brick Industry Association (BIA)
coordinated with several BSCP facilities to test the Hg content of the
raw materials used and provided the data to the EPA. The EPA mapped the
facilities and quarry locations provided by BIA to identify two
distinct quarry locations, an Oklahoma deposit and an Ohio deposit, for
use in the development of a Hg raw material variability factor. The
data from these two deposit locations were incorporated into the upper
prediction limit (UPL) equation. Please see ``Mercury Content of
Oklahoma and Ohio Shale Deposits Supplying the Brick Industry'' and
``Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for
Brick and Structural Clay Products'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0291 for more information about the data and variability factor.
4. Startup and Shutdown Procedures
The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup
and shutdown for tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards
set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented
through an APCD (if applicable) and below which no product could be
introduced to the kiln (400[emsp14][deg]F for startup and
300[emsp14][deg]F for shutdown). Industry commenters indicated that the
exhaust of some kilns never reaches the specific temperatures proposed
by the EPA, and that some product must be introduced to the kiln during
startup to heat the kiln enough for full production. The EPA evaluated
these comments and agrees that the proposed standards do not actually
represent the work practices representative of the best performing
kilns. The intent of the proposed standards was to represent work
practices of the best performing kilns to minimize emissions by
limiting the amount of brick being fired before the kiln reaches full
production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being
routed to the APCD, if applicable. As noted at proposal, the standards
were based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey. The EPA
received additional information following proposal on the procedures
used during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns that
are more representative of the best performing kilns.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for
periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles
as the proposed standards but are representative of how kilns actually
perform during startup. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD
temperature as 400[emsp14][deg]F, the EPA is requiring the owner or
operator to

[[Page 65486]]

determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does
not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the
product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before
the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying
that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA
is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate
needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that
this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust
reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln
temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no
additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below
the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln
temperature profile.

B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP?

1. Changes to the Data Set
After proposal, a public commenter identified a transcription error
in the production rate for the PM and Hg stack tests for one floor tile
roller kiln. The production rate was corrected, and the PM and Hg lb/
ton values were recalculated. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test
data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs
had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable
values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be
maintained at 248 25[emsp14][deg]F (i.e., between 223 and
273[emsp14][deg]F). Test runs with temperatures outside that range were
removed from the data set. (See the memorandum ``Test Data Used in Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing Final Rule'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0290 for more information on this analysis.)
During the public comment period, the sanitaryware manufacturing
company that provided all of the data used for the sanitaryware tunnel
kiln MACT floors clarified that the production rates they provided in
their CAA section 114 survey response are in terms of ``greenware
fired'' into the kiln rather than ``fired product'' coming out of the
kiln (as requested in the section 114 survey). Therefore, to be
consistent with the data, the final emission limits for PM as a
surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and Hg from sanitaryware tunnel kilns
are in terms of lb/ton of greenware fired rather than lb/ton of product
fired (as proposed).
Finally, in response to comments requesting a change in the format
of the emission limits for dioxins/furans, the EPA recalculated the
emissions for each test run in units of ng/kg of throughput
(specifically, ``fired product'' for ceramic tile roller kilns,
``greenware fired'' for sanitaryware tunnel kilns, and ``throughput
processed'' for ceramic tile press dryers and spray dryers). The MACT
floors were then recalculated using those data, and the final emission
limits for dioxins/furans for clay ceramics sources are in units of ng/
kg rather than concentration as proposed.
2. Startup and Shutdown Procedures
The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup
and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers,
ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with and
without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the
exhaust must be vented through an APCD (if applicable) and below which
no product could be introduced to the kiln or dryer (400[emsp14][deg]F
for startup and 300[emsp14][deg]F for shutdown). One industry commenter
indicated that the exhaust of some dryers never reach the specific
temperatures proposed by the EPA. The EPA evaluated the comment and
agrees that the proposed standards are not actually representative of
the best performing dryers.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for
periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles
as the proposed standards but more accurately reflect the best
performing sources. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD
temperature as 400[emsp14][deg]F, the EPA is requiring the owner or
operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a
kiln or dryer does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required
to determine the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile
that must be achieved before the kiln or dryer can reach full
production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be
introduced to the kiln or dryer, the EPA is requiring the owner or
operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln
or dryer. The final startup standards specify that this startup
production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust
reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln
or dryer temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that
no additional throughput can be introduced once the kiln or dryer
exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-
specific kiln or dryer temperature profile.

C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since proposal?

A number of changes have been made to the monitoring requirements
for the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in response to
comments on the proposed rule. These changes are summarized in Table 6
of this preamble. Further details about the basis for these changes are
provided in the response-to-comments documents for the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP,
available in Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 (Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 (BSCP Manufacturing).

Table 6--Summary of Changes to Monitoring Requirements Since Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirements
Sources -------------------------------------------
Proposal Promulgation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP or clay ceramics kilns To demonstrate To demonstrate
equipped with a wet compliance with compliance with
scrubber. acid gas standard: acid gas standard:
Monitor Monitor
scrubber liquid pH. scrubber liquid pH
Monitor Maintain at
scrubber chemical or above highest
feed rate (if average ph during
applicable). acid gas test
Maintain at
or above average pH/
feed rate during
acid gas test.

[[Page 65487]]

To demonstrate To demonstrate
compliance with non- compliance with non-
Hg HAP metals Hg HAP metals and
standard: acid gas standards:
Monitor Monitor
scrubber pressure scrubber liquid
drop.. flow rate.
Maintain at Maintain at
or above average or above highest
pressure drop average flow rate
during PM/non-Hg during PM/non-Hg
HAP metals test.. HAP metals and acid
gas tests.
To demonstrate
compliance with non-
Hg HAP metals and
acid gas standards:
Monitor
scrubber liquid
flow rate..
Maintain at
or above average
flow rate during PM/
non-Hg HAP metals
and acid gas tests..
BSCP kilns with no add-on To demonstrate To demonstrate
control. compliance with non- compliance with non-
Hg HAP metals Hg HAP metals
standard: standard:
Perform Perform
daily, 15-minute VE daily, 15-minute VE
observations.. observations
If VE are If VE are
observed, initiate observed, promptly
and complete conduct an opacity
corrective actions.. test
If opacity
greater than 10%
are observed,
initiate and
complete corrective
actions
Clay ceramics kilns with no To demonstrate To demonstrate
add-on control, or compliance with compliance with
intending to comply with dioxins/furans dioxins/furans
dioxin/furan standard standard: standard:
without an ACI system. Monitor Monitor
kiln operating kiln stack
temperature.. temperature
Maintain at Maintain at
or above average or below highest
operating stack temperature
temperature during during dioxin/furan
dioxin/furan test.. test
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

The EPA received a total of 52 public comment letters on the
proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0291 for the complete public comments.) The EPA received a total of
seven public comment letters on the proposed Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for the
complete public comments.) The following sections summarize the major
public comments received on the proposal and present the EPA's
responses to those comments.

A. Health-Based Standards

Comment: Two commenters disagreed with setting standards under CAA
section 112(d)(4) for emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl2 from new
and existing BSCP and clay ceramics sources. One commenter questioned
whether the EPA has the authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4)
standards for these acid gases. The commenter asserted that it would be
arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to set risk-based standards for
these pollutants when the EPA previously decided not to set CAA section
112(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2 in air toxics
rulemakings for industrial boilers and power plants. For power plants,
the EPA stated that the agency ``does not have sufficient information
to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) health-based emission standards and
we did not receive such data during the comment period.''\1\ The
commenter noted that the EPA reached a similar conclusion with respect
to industrial boilers, declining to set risk-based standards because of
a lack of information on emissions.\2\ The commenter asserted that the
health and scientific data regarding emissions of acid gases from BSCP
and clay ceramics plants similarly fail to provide justification for
setting HBEL for these pollutants. The commenter asserted the EPA must
instead set MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Responses to Public Comments on National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0234-20126.
\2\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and
Process Heaters, 75 FR 32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, the second commenter expressed concern over using CAA
section 112(d)(4) and health-based risk assessment for setting the HCl,
HF and Cl2 standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing. The commenter noted that this would be the
first time the EPA used the health-based risk assessment approach under
CAA section 112(d)(4) to set emission standards for HF and
Cl2; although the EPA has used this approach in the past to
establish health-based standards for other source categories, it was
restricted to ``HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility''
(79 FR 75639).
The commenter supported focusing on pollutants that pose the
greatest risks but expressed concern that the EPA has not adequately
established that the approaches used are appropriate. The commenter
asserted that the EPA's approach represented a far-reaching and
significant change in the manner in which MACT standards are
established under CAA section 112(d) and that it was inappropriate for
the EPA to propose such changes in a rulemaking for individual source
categories instead of discussing the approach with all affected
parties. The commenter noted that Congress established section 112 of
the CAA to rely on a technology-based approach to avoid the gridlock of
the unsuccessful risk-based methods used before the adoption of the
1990 CAA Amendments. Accordingly, while the CAA includes language under
section 112(d)(4) allowing the use of risk in the establishment of
MACT, it should be used only under limited and very specific
circumstances, and the commenter stated that the EPA's proposal did not
adequately make the case for the use of CAA section 112(d)(4).
Conversely, two other commenters stated that the EPA has clear
legal authority to set HBEL and ample justification to do so for the
BSCP source category. The commenters stated that under the terms of
this provision, the EPA may set an emission standard at a level higher
than would be required by CAA section 112(d)(4), provided that: (1) The
pollutant(s) being regulated is a threshold pollutant and (2) the
standard provides an ample margin of safety. The

[[Page 65488]]

commenters stated that both of these criteria are met in this case.
The commenters asserted that the proposed standard is consistent
with Congress's expectations regarding the implementation of CAA
section 112(d)(4). According to the Senate report accompanying the
legislation, ``For some pollutants a MACT emission limitation may be
far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the
environment'' and in such situations, ``[t]o avoid expenditures by
regulated entities which secure no public health or environmental
benefit, the Administrator is given discretionary authority to consider
the evidence for a health threshold higher than MACT at the time the
standard is under review.'' \3\ The commenters stated that for this
rulemaking, MACT would result in emission standards that are far more
stringent than are needed to protect health and the environment and
asserted that Congress enacted CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow emission
standards to be tailored to protect public health without imposing
unreasonable and unnecessary standards on affected sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we do not have
the authority to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in this
rulemaking. The EPA also disagrees that the decision to establish CAA
section 112(d)(4) standards is inconsistent with our decisions on other
rulemakings. The commenters' more detailed arguments and the EPA's
responses are provided in the remainder of this section.
1. Health Thresholds
Comment: One commenter stated that a pollutant is not a threshold
pollutant under CAA section 112(d)(4) unless the EPA establishes that
it cannot cause cancer at any level of exposure. The commenter asserted
that HCl, HF, and Cl2 do not have already-established safe
health thresholds and the EPA's proposed standards would not provide
``an ample margin of safety.''
Conversely, two commenters agreed with the EPA that the available
health data indicate that HCl, HF, and Cl2 are all threshold
pollutants. The commenters stated that the data show that each of these
pollutants has a discernible exposure threshold below which adverse
human health effects are not expected to occur; in addition, none of
the available data suggest that these pollutants reasonably should be
expected to act as a carcinogen or mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action
that would result in non-threshold effects.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the first commenter regarding HCl,
HF and Cl2 not having thresholds accepted by the scientific
community, and we acknowledge the support of the other two commenters.
The EPA's conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold
pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered
in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is
agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals
across agencies, i.e., the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
The toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer
toxicity assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely
vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer
review processes before they are published. In addition, the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) has endorsed the use of the reference values
derived by these sources to support the EPA's risk assessments in the
residual risk and technology review (RTR) program.
Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been
classified as a carcinogen or as ``suggestive of the potential to be
carcinogenic,'' individually or in combination, by existing
authoritative bodies, including EPA, CalEPA, International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), and the European Community. In light of the absence
of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the
evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and
Cl2 are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA
considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA
section 112(d)(4) for these pollutants. The existing health effects
evidence on HCl, HF and Cl2 that provide support for this
determination is described below.
Potential health effects of HCl:
There are limited studies on the carcinogenic potential of
HCl in humans. The occupational data are limited to a couple of studies
(Steenland et al., 1988, Beaumont et al., 1986)\4,5\ where the subjects
were exposed to a mixture of acid gases (mainly sulfuric acid)and other
chemicals (including metals) that may have contained HCl. These studies
failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to other
substances shown to have carcinogenic activity and are therefore not
appropriate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of HCl. Another
occupational study failed to show evidence of association between
exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing plant
employees showing that there is no evidence that HCl is a human
carcinogen.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T.
Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid
mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766-776.
\5\ Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. McQuiston,
M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin.
1987. Lung cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid mist
and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911-921.
\6\ Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung
cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case-
control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the human data, chronic inhalation studies
in animals have reported no carcinogenic responses after chronic
exposure to HCl (Albert et al., 1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).\7,8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N.
Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen
chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
68(4): 597-603.
\8\ Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert.
1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in
rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401-406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrogen chloride has not been demonstrated to be
genotoxic. The genotoxicity database consists of two studies showing
false positive results potentially associated with low pH in the test
system (Morita et al., 1992; Cifone et al., 1987).\9,10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992.
Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat.
Res. 268: 297-305.
\10\ Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987.
Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase
locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronic exposure to HCl at concentrations below the
current IRIS reference concentration (RfC) are not expected to cause
adverse effects.
Potential health effects of HF:
There are a limited number of studies investigating the
carcinogenic potential of HF. These studies are unreliable on the issue
of possible carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluorides, in general, because
of many confounding factors (e.g., exposure to multiple unknown
chemicals and smoking habits not accounted for) and because no
breakdown was done by type of fluoride exposure.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for
Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine. 2003. Available at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf.

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

[[Page 65489]]

Chronic exposure at or below the current CalEPA reference
exposure level (REL) is not expected to cause adverse effects.
Potential health effects of Cl2:
The existing studies of workers in the chemical industry
have not found any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic.
Chronic bioassays in rodents and long-term studies in non-
human primates have shown no evidence for carcinogenicity in
respiratory tract as target tissue or other tissues.
Chronic exposure to Cl2 at concentrations below
the current ATSDR minimal risk level (MRL) are not expected to cause
adverse effects.
We disagree with the comment that the EPA's proposed HBEL does not
provide an ample margin of safety, for the following reasons.
First, the limit is based on the facility in the source category
with the highest potential exposure to nearby residents. The HBEL at
this single facility reflects a ratio of exposure concentration over
the reference value of up to 1 (at an exposure concentration below the
RfC is considered to be health protective). As such, exposures will not
exceed the established health threshold at this facility. In addition,
the exposure estimate used to set the limit is very health protective
in that it assumes constant exposure for 70 years. Actual exposures
from emissions from this facility are expected to be lower (i.e.,
because persons will spend time away from home). This conservative
exposure scenario is consistent with the ``ample margin of safety''
requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4).
Second, the ratios at the other facilities (not the highest
facility noted above) from this source category are lower and in most
cases significantly lower, with approximately 90 percent of these
facilities having a ratio of 0.5 or less, which provides a further
increased margin of safety beyond the ample margin of safety
established at the facility with the highest potential exposure.
Comment: One commenter stated that, according to the EPA, an RfC is
merely ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude)'' of an exposure that is ``likely to be'' without health
risks.\12\ By definition, this ``estimate'' is not by itself a ``safe
threshold'' of exposure that ``presents no risk'' of adverse health
effects. The commenter stated the EPA cannot lawfully use a pollutant's
RfC as a default ``safe threshold'' under CAA section 112(d)(4) because
an RfC does not pose ``no'' health risks, as the commenter asserted the
CAA requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ U.S. EPA, Glossary, https://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/glossary.htm (last updated Apr. 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that the EPA is authorized to set risk-based
standards only where it has direct evidence of the level at which there
are no adverse effects observed and that proceeding with HBEL without a
no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is unlawful. Another commenter
stated the use of health-based standards should only be considered for
HAP that have been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA and are contained in
the IRIS database with a high level of confidence in the RfC. With
respect to HCl, the IRIS confidence levels are ``Low'' for the
inhalation RfC. In ``Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime
Exposure,'' IRIS states, ``This substance/agent has not undergone a
complete evaluation and determination under the EPA's IRIS program for
evidence of human carcinogenic potential.'' \13\ In the proposal, the
EPA acknowledged that ``[t]he EPA has not classified HCl for
carcinogenicity'' and ``[l]ittle research has been conducted on its
carcinogenicity'' (79 FR 75639).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information System--Hydrogen
chloride. https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter also stated that IARC concluded that ``[t]here is
inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in humans of hydrochloric
acid,'' that ``[t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity
in experimental animals of hydrochloric acid,'' and that HCl ``is not
classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.'' \14\ The commenter
stated that the EPA did not identify any evidence that HCl is not
carcinogenic and noted that the only study the EPA referenced is ``one
occupational study'' that ``found no evidence of carcinogenicity'' (79
FR 75639). Because the EPA did not provide a citation for the study or
otherwise identify it or discuss it, the public are unable to
adequately comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), available at https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/mono54-8.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The EPA's risk assessments are supported by the best
available toxicity assessments from authoritative bodies including the
EPA's IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The SAB has endorsed the use of
the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA's risk
assessments in the RTR program. These authoritative bodies derive
health protective reference values at or below which no adverse effects
are expected to occur. As mentioned previously in this section, the
toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity
assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted
through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review
processes before they are published.
The commenter stated that there is not a NOAEL and that based on
that, the EPA cannot set a HBEL for HCl. The EPA toxicity assessments
consider the entire toxicity database for specific chemicals and are
conducted following well-established EPA guidance on how to assess
potential hazard of a chemical and conduct dose response assessments.
These assessments include the derivation of an RfC, which is likely to
be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human
population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages) over a
lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived from a
NOAEL, lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) or benchmark dose,
with uncertainty factors applied to reflect the limitations of the data
used. In particular for HCl, the point of departure for the RfC (15
milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m \3\)) was selected from chronic
inhalation studies in rodents and was adjusted to reflect a lifetime of
exposure (2.7 mg/m \3\) and extrapolated to a human equivalent
concentration (6.1 mg/m \3\) based on differences in the effects of a
gas in the respiratory system between rats and humans. Uncertainty
factors (total of 300, yielding an RfC of 0.02 mg/m \3\) were applied
to account for interspecies differences, intraspecies extrapolation and
extrapolation from a LOAEL to NOAEL. It is important to note that in
the IRIS assessment for HCl it is stated that a reasonable estimate of
the NOAEL in humans is in the range of 0.3-3 mg/m \3\. This estimate
resulted from an expert review workshop and is based on examination of
the HCl literature, a comparison with sulfuric acid toxicity, and the
judgment of those in attendance at the review workshop. In addition,
this value is generally consistent with identified NOAELs in subchronic
animal studies (OECD, 2002). Based on this information, we are
confident that the IRIS HCl RfC represents a conservative health
protective benchmark below which adverse health effects are not
expected to occur.
As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the
EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific
evidence on HCl (discussed previously in this section) and concluded
that there is no evidence that HCl is a carcinogen and that this
information is sufficient for this regulatory determination. The 2002

[[Page 65490]]

OECD assessment of HCl drew similar conclusions:

For genetic toxicity, a negative result has been shown in the
Ames test. A positive result in a chromosome aberration test using
Hamster ovary cells is considered to be an artifact due to the low
pH. For carcinogenicity, no pre-neoplastic or neoplastic nasal
lesions were observed in a 128-week inhalation study with SD male
rats at 10 ppm hydrogen chloride gas. No evidence of treatment
related carcinogenicity was observed in other animal studies
performed by inhalation, oral or dermal administration. In humans,
no association between hydrogen chloride exposure and tumor
incidence was observed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ United Nations Environment Programme 2002, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Screening Information
Dataset (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 15, Hydrogen
Chloride: CAS N[deg]:7647-01-0. October 25, 2002. https://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/7647010.pdf.

Additionally, the EPA conducted a screening level literature review in
2003 and did not identify any critical studies that would change the
conclusions in the 1995 HCl IRIS assessment. Based on the information
available, the EPA concludes that this information is sufficient to
support setting an HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA proposed to base the HCl
emission standards on the HCl RfC and argued it is unlawful to do so
where the EPA has ``low confidence'' in the RfC. The commenter stated
that it is arbitrary to claim there is an established, safe health
threshold based on a reference value in which the EPA has low
confidence. According to the commenter, having low confidence in the
RfC is the same as admitting that the EPA has ``low confidence'' in the
proposed emission standards. The fact that the EPA was unable to
determine a no-effect level in a robust and reliable scientific study
demonstrates concern that chronic exposure to even very low levels of
HCl can compromise health, especially in sensitive subpopulations.
Therefore, the EPA cannot state that HCl presents no risk of adverse
health effects.
The commenter stated that the EPA used a non-cancer health
threshold for HCl based on a chronic inhalation study on rats.\16\ The
EPA has determined the RfC to be 0.02 mg/m\3\ (0.0134 part per million
(ppm)), based on rat studies by Albert, et al., demonstrating
hyperplasia of the nasal mucosa (the protective cell lining of the
nasal tract and cavities), larynx, and trachea.\17\ The commenter
asserted that because these rat studies failed to identify a NOAEL, the
EPA based the RfC on a LOAEL (i.e., the lowest dose in the study that
induced a measurable adverse health effect in treated animals). The
commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) does not permit risk-
based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined; at a minimum,
Congress required that a threshold be based on the `` `no observable
[adverse] effects level' (NOAEL) below which human exposure is
presumably `safe.' '' \18\ The EPA has similarly recognized that ``the
legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health-
based emission limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the
level at which no observable effects occur'' (79 FR 75642). The
commenter stated that, if there is no established non-zero threshold
level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious
health effects, then the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the
pollutant at a given level presents no harm. The commenter stated that
without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist, and the EPA does
not have the authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) to set an HBEL for
HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride.
\17\ Albert, R.E., et al., Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen
chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 597 (1982).
\18\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The EPA's chemical-specific toxicity assessments are
derived using the EPA's risk assessment guidelines and approaches that
are well established and vetted through the scientific community, and
follow rigorous peer review processes.\19\ The RTR program gives
preference to EPA values (i.e., RfCs for noncancer assessments) for use
in risk assessments and uses other values, as appropriate, when those
values are derived with methods and peer review processes consistent
with those followed by the EPA. The approach for selecting appropriate
toxicity values for use in the RTR Program has been endorsed by the
SAB.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance
documents available at https://www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html.
\20\ Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA's draft entitled, ``Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by
the EPA's Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum
Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.'' May 7, 2010.
Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA's RfCs are assigned confidence levels of high, medium and
low based on the completeness of the supporting database. High
confidence RfCs are considered less likely to change substantially with
the collection of additional information, while low confidence RfCs are
recognized as being based on less complete data and so may be subject
to change if additional data is developed.\21\ It is important to note
that a ``low confidence'' label does not indicate that the EPA believes
that the RfC is unreliable. For a given chemical, if there are not
adequate or appropriate data with which to derive an RfC, one is not
calculated. All RfCs, even those with low confidence, are appropriate
for regulatory use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ U.S. EPA Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk Analysis Web site.
Air Toxics Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available
at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We disagree with the comment that without a NOAEL, no established
threshold can exist. The EPA toxicity assessments for specific
chemicals are conducted using well-established EPA guidance on how to
assess potential hazard of chemicals and how to conduct dose response
assessments to arrive at a chemical concentration below which we do not
expect adverse effects to occur (i.e., threshold). These assessments
include the derivation of a RfC which is likely to be without
appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human population
(including susceptible subgroups and all life stages [e.g., children])
over a lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived from
a NOAEL, LOAEL or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to
account for relevant extrapolations, including extrapolation from LOAEL
to NOAEL, and to reflect additional limitations of the data used.\22
23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation
Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry.
EPA/600/8-90/066F, Oct 1994. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-
0160.
\23\ U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and
Reference Concentration Processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F, Dec 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: One commenter stated that the studies the EPA relied upon
only investigated respiratory effects and did not consider other ways
HCl could cause harm. The commenter noted the EPA has acknowledged that
the RfC is an ``inhalation RfC'' and represents the health risk and
toxicity associated with the inhalation pathway of exposure only (75 FR
32031). The commenter stated that the EPA identified no studies that
indicate whether exposure to HCl--at 0.02 mg/m\3\ or any other
concentration--harms other bodily systems.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the agency
investigated only respiratory effects and that it did not consider
other ways in which HCl can cause harm. In the principal studies

[[Page 65491]]

upon which the RfC is based, a complete necropsy was performed on all
animals. Histologic sections were prepared from the nasal cavity, lung,
trachea, larynx, liver, kidneys, testes, and other organs where gross
pathological signs were present. Due to the reactive nature of HCl,
however, portal of entry effects are anticipated to occur first and at
lower exposure concentrations. The IRIS assessment \24\ for HCl
included a comprehensive review of all the available toxicity data for
HCl. No effects are expected to occur at exposures of HCl at or below
the level of the RfC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm (Accessed on July 24, 2015)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: One commenter stated that the RfC is an inadequate basis
for establishing a threshold because it ``did not reflect any potential
cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual's exposure to
multiple HAP or to a combination of HAP and criteria pollutants'' and
noted that the EPA recognized the potential for cumulative and
synergistic effects was important in its consideration of risk-based
standards in two recent rulemakings (see 75 FR 32031 and 76 FR 25050).
The commenter stated that there is no ``established'' threshold at
the RfC for HCl, because the CalEPA has determined a lower and more
health-protective value than the RfC. The EPA's chronic inhalation RfC
is 0.02 mg/m\3\, while California's chronic inhalation REL is 0.009 mg/
m\3\.\25\ The commenter stated that CalEPA's REL is based on the same
science as the IRIS RfC but was developed more recently than the EPA's
RfC, which was last revised in 1995.\26\ The REL is ``the concentration
level at or below which no health effects are anticipated in the
general human population,'' and the EPA's process for developing RELs
``is similar to that used by EPA to develop IRIS values and
incorporates significant external scientific peer review.'' \27\ The
commenter asserted that the EPA and CalEPA disagree about the
concentration of HCl exposure at which no health effects are expected
and that the disagreement stems from how to account for uncertainty and
variability in interpreting the study results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), OEHHA Acute, 8-Hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels
(REL)s, https://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/Allrels.html (last accessed Mar.
12, 2015).
\26\ California OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries Using
the Previous Version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines at
311 (1999), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf.
\27\ EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission
Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing Source Category, May 19, 2014, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291-0132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that two agencies have determined significantly different
``safe'' levels, the commenter contended, demonstrates as a matter of
law that there is no ``established'' health threshold for HCl and
precludes the EPA from lawfully setting CAA section 112(d)(4) standards
for HCl. The commenter stated that the statute requires that a health
threshold ``has been established'' and argued the legislative history
indicates Congress intended for CAA section 112(d)(4) limits to be used
only where there was a ``well-established'' level that presents ``no
risk'' of adverse effects and about which there was no ``dispute.''
\28\ The commenter asserted that Congress did not grant the
Administrator the authority to establish the threshold itself and that
the EPA does not have authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards
in situations where there is disagreement among expert agencies as to
what the correct health threshold should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter asserted that by failing to address the CalEPA REL,
the EPA contravened its obligation under administrative law to address
significant evidence that detracts from the agency's conclusion. The
commenter stated that for the EPA to rely solely on the IRIS RfC, the
EPA would need to explain why the CalEPA REL is incorrect and why the
IRIS RfC reflects the best available science and risk assessment
practices, particularly when the IRIS RfC and CalEPA REL thresholds are
based on the same science and when the EPA relied upon CalEPA RELs at
several other points in its proposal (e.g., the EPA used the CalEPA REL
for acute inhalation exposure to HCl as the basis for its CAA section
112(d)(4) standards). If the EPA considers CalEPA's acute REL for HCl
to reflect a reliable value, then the commenter stated it is arbitrary
to disregard CalEPA's chronic REL for HCl. The commenter further noted
the EPA relied upon the CalEPA chronic REL for HF in order to determine
a threshold for HF and argued that using the CalEPA REL for HF but not
for HCl is arbitrary.
Response: At an initial point, with respect to the comment that
different agencies have identified different thresholds and so ``as a
matter of law'' there is no ``established'' health threshold for HCl,
the EPA disagrees that the phrase ``has been established'' in CAA
section 112(d)(4) means that there is universal agreement on the health
threshold level and that differences between CalEPA and the EPA
demonstrate that no health threshold ``has been established.'' The
statute does not clearly identify who must establish the health
threshold or how such threshold should be established. In the absence
of such specificity in the statute, the EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(4)
to authorize the EPA to set health-based limits where, in the EPA's
expert judgment, there is a health threshold for the pollutant below
which no adverse health effects are expected to occur.
Further, we disagree with the comment that there is no established
threshold at the RfC because CalEPA developed a reference value at a
lower concentration than the RfC. The approaches used by both agencies
are similar and assume a threshold below which adverse health effects
would not be expected; however, there are some differences between
agencies in methods for deriving the estimate for a threshold that may
affect the final resulting values. Both agencies use the best available
science to support their risk assessments. The EPA has an approach for
selecting appropriate health benchmark values and, in general, this
approach places greater weight on the EPA derived health benchmarks
than those from other agencies. The approach favoring EPA benchmarks
(when they exist) has been endorsed by the SAB and ensures use of
values most consistent with well-established and scientifically-based
EPA science policy.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA's draft entitled, ``Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by
the EPA's Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum
Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.'' May 7, 2010.
Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically for HCl, we selected the IRIS RfC for HCl as the most
appropriate chronic noncancer health threshold to use for this rule. In
the case of HF, there is not an EPA RfC available and the only chronic
reference value from an authoritative source and appropriate for use in
this rule is the California REL.
Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's decision to
set a HBEL for HF. These commenters contended the EPA does not have the
authority to set HF standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the
scientific data supporting the EPA's findings regarding the
carcinogenic potential of HF are insufficient and unreliable. Three
commenters asserted that the EPA should not adopt HBEL for

[[Page 65492]]

HF due to uncertainty about the vulnerabilities of children, infants,
and fetuses to HF exposures at the REL concentration used by the EPA to
set the HF emissions standards. Two commenters noted that the proposal
states, ``There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic
potential of HF'' (79 FR 75641) and ``[t]he EPA has not classified HF
for carcinogenicity'' (79 FR 75640) and questioned how the agency could
be confident that HF is eligible to be a threshold pollutant if its
status as a non-carcinogen is uncertain.
One commenter noted that the EPA failed to identify an established,
well-defined health-based threshold, below which HF does not cause
cancer, that is based on reliable science and has a high level of
certainty. The EPA has stated that ``carcinogenicity via inhalation of
fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting
in the existing literature'' (79 FR 75641) and that the EPA ``has not
classified HF for carcinogenicity'' (79 FR 75640). The commenter stated
that it is possible that HF causes cancer because increased rates of
cancer have been observed in workers exposed to a mixture of chemicals
that included fluoride \30\ and noted that the EPA acknowledged data
suggesting that those with occupational exposure to HF have greater
than normal occurrences of cancer.\31\ The commenter stated that,
because of the data showing possible carcinogenic effect, as well as
the data showing mutagenic effect in animals, the EPA does not have
enough evidence to classify HF as a threshold pollutant with any level
of confidence. The commenter stated that the EPA failed to explain how
it weighed the conflicting evidence of HF's carcinogenicity and
considered EPA's conclusion to be arbitrary and capricious. Three
commenters noted that the EPA does not consider HF in its IRIS database
but noted that HF breaks down into fluorine, which is included in
IRIS.\32\ One commenter stated that IRIS indicates no data are
available to determine an RfC for chronic inhalation exposure to
fluorine.\33\ This commenter further noted that IARC ``has determined
that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable.''
\34\ Another commenter stated that health-based standards should be
considered only for HAP that are contained in IRIS with a high level of
confidence in the RfC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Gallerani, M., et al., Systemic and topical effects of
intradermal hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998).
\31\ EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site:
Hydrogen Fluoride, https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html
(last updated Oct. 18, 2013).
\32\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine (Soluble
Fluoride) (CASRN 7782-41-4), https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm
(last updated Oct. 31, 2014).
\33\ Id.
\34\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen
Fluoride, and Fluorine at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter noted that although the National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) database does not contain HF,\35\ the database does
provide evidence that HF has a mutagenic effect in animals. This
conclusion was supported by other scientific reviews \36\ and by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which states that ``the overall
evidence from human animal studies is mixed'' on the question of
whether fluoride is carcinogenic when inhaled.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33
Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last
updated Jan. 6, 2015).
\36\ See, e.g., National Research Council of the National
Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for
Selected Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91-92, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf.
\37\ National Research Council of the National Academies,
Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected
Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91-92, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four commenters questioned the EPA's reliance on a CalEPA risk
assessment, noting that the CalEPA REL is based on a study of adults
exposed to HF in the workplace \38\ and therefore, did not include any
children. Two commenters stated that a 10X ``intraspecies'' factor was
applied to account for variability among humans, but noted that CalEPA
expressed concern about ``the potentially greater susceptibility of
children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid
bone growth in early years.'' \39\ One commenter recommended the EPA
use an additional default factor of at least 10X to account for
uncertainty regarding health risks to children, infants, and fetuses.
The commenter stated that a 10X factor would be consistent with the NAS
recommendation\40\ and with the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).\41\ Another commenter stated that
recent science not considered at the time CalEPA adopted the REL
provides further support for prior research showing that HF has
neurodevelopmental effects on children and that children living in
high-fluoride areas have been observed to have lower IQ scores than
those living in low-fluoride areas.\42\ The commenter asserted that the
adverse effects of fluoride on children are likely to be more severe,
and long-lasting, compared with effects on adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Derryberry O.M., et al., Fluoride exposure and worker
health-The health status of workers in a fertilizer manufacturing
plant in relation to fluoride exposure, 6 Arch. Environ. Health. 503
(1963).
\39\ OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280.
\40\ National Research Council of the National Academies,
Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, at 190-93 (2009).
\41\ 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C) (requiring that, in establishing,
modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption
for a pesticide chemical residue, ``for purposes of clause (ii)(I)
an additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide chemical
residue and other sources of exposure shall be applied'' to protect
infants and children).
\42\ See Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride
Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 120 Envtl.
Health Perspect. 1362 (Oct. 2012), https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/
(reviewing and discussing findings from over 20 studies); Choi,
A.L., et al., Association of Lifetime Exposure to Fluoride and
Cognitive Functions in Chinese Children: A Pilot Study, 47 Neurotox.
& Teratology 96 (Jan.-Feb. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter stated that the CalEPA REL is based on a study that
only examined the increased bone density (skeletal fluorosis) endpoint
and noted that CalEPA stated that ``[t]he primary uncertainty in the
study was the lack of a comprehensive health effects examination.''
\43\ The commenter stated that the EPA does not know whether
neurodevelopmental harm, or other health effects, are more sensitive
than skeletal harm; therefore, the EPA cannot lawfully set a ``safe''
threshold at a concentration that poses ``no risk'' of health effects
with ``an ample margin of safety'' based on a study that lacks ``a
comprehensive health effects examination.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another commenter asserted that the EPA has insufficient data
showing exposure to HF at the REL value ``presents no risk'' of harm to
other bodily systems. The commenter noted that HF is a possible
reproductive toxin,\44\ that occupational studies of women exposed to
fluoride identified increased rates of menstrual irregularities,\45\
and that animal studies have found that fluoride impairs reproduction
and increases the rates of fetal bone and teeth malformation.\46\ In
addition, chronic inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation
and congestion of the nose and throat

[[Page 65493]]

and bronchitis,\47\ and animal studies found increased rates of kidney
and liver damage from hydrofluoric acid inhalation.\48\ Further, HF
readily penetrates the skin, causing deep tissue layer destruction,\49\
and ingestion of HF may result in vomiting and abdominal pain, with
painful necrotic lesions, hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis
reported after significant exposure.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Massachusetts
Chemical Fact Sheet: Hydrofluoric Acid, at 1, available at https://www.turi.org/content/download/3663/44840/file/Fact_Sheet_Hydrofluoric_Acid.pdf.
\45\ EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health
Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds,
EPA/600/8-89/002F (1988).
\46\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen
Fluoride and Fluorine; EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review
of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related
Compounds.
\47\ CalEPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of
Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels.
\48\ EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health
Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds.
\49\ Burgher, Francois, et al., Experimental 70% hydrofluoric
acid burns: histological observations in an established human skin
explants ex vivo model, 30.2 Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology 100
(2011).
\50\ CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH): Hydrogen Fluoride/Hydrofluoric Acid, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated the CalEPA REL was developed by CalEPA using
an outdated version of CalEPA's Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines
(1999) that has been ``superseded'' by the more recent guidelines
released in February 2015.\51\ The commenter noted the 1999 version
required updating in part because it did not include sufficient
consideration of ``infants and children in assessing risks from air
toxics.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 1; CalEPA,
OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessments (Feb. 2015), available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The EPA has not reviewed HF in the IRIS program. However,
we concur with the two recent authoritative assessments by ATSDR (2003)
\52\ and the European Union (2002) \53\ that the available evidence
does not support classifying HF as ``Carcinogenic to Humans,'' ``Likely
to Be Carcinogenic to Humans'' or as having ``Suggestive Evidence of
Carcinogenic Potential'' (U.S. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)--
``Although elevated cancer rates have been reported in some
occupational groups exposed to hydrogen fluoride and fluoride dusts,
these studies were not controlled for the multiple substance
exposures to which industrial workers are generally exposed. Because
of these multiple exposures and the problem inherent in all
occupational studies in identifying appropriate reference
populations, only limited evidence from such studies is specifically
relevant to the investigation of possible carcinogenic effects of
long-term dermal exposure to hydrofluoric acid and inhalation
exposure to hydrogen fluoride and/or fluoride dusts in human beings.
As noted previously, IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of
fluoride to humans is not classifiable.''
\53\ European Union Risk Assessment Report (2001)--
``Carcinogenicity studies, in which HF has been tested, are not
available. Studies with NaF may provide insight in the
carcinogenicity of HF, especially for systemic tumours. With the
latter substance 4 animal studies have been performed, 2 in which
NaF was supplied in the drinking water to rats and mice, and two in
which NaF was administered via the diet, again to rats and mice . .
. .In the rat drinking water study, equivocal indications for
osteosarcomas in males were obtained, but the rat diet study was
negative, despite clear indications of fluoride intoxication. The
mouse drinking water study was also negative. The mouse diet study
was confounded by the presence of a retrovirus which may have (co)-
induced the growth of benign osteomas thus thwarting the
interpretation of the study. In the diet studies (Maurer et al.
1990; Maurer et al. 1993) bone fluoride levels were higher than in
the drinking water studies (NTP 1990), while in the diet studies no
indications for osteosarcomas were obtained. Furthermore, the
osteomas were considered to be reminiscent of hyperplasias rather
than true bone neoplasms. It was concluded that the available data
is sufficient to suggest that fluoride is not a carcinogenic
substance in animals (Janssen and Knaap 1994) . . . Based on
epidemiological data IARC (1982) concluded that the evidence for
carcinogenicity of orally taken fluoride in humans is inadequate.
Recent studies (cited in CEPA 1993; Janssen and Knaap 1994) did not
supply evidence of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water
and cancer mortality, either. US-EPA, reviewing the epidemiological
data for fluoride, stated that no conclusion can be drawn as to the
carcinogenicity of fluoride after inhalatory exposure, because in
all studies available, humans were exposed to other substances as
well (Thiessen 1988).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the studies cited by the commenter are from exposure to
fluoride and not from inhalation exposures to HF. Neurodevelopmental
effects may be relevant to high fluoride exposures, but the existing
evidence shows these effects may occur at fluoride exposure levels
beyond those that would cause respiratory effects if HF were the sole
source of exposure. In the study of Lund (1997),\54\ plasma fluoride
concentrations were shown to increase in the nanogram per milliliter
(ng/ml) range from exposures to HF in the mg/m\3\ level (e.g.,
elevations of approximately 20 nanograms fluoride per milliliter in
plasma resulted from 1-hour exposure to 2 mg/m\3\ HF, with notable
respiratory and eye irritation effects). Reproductive and developmental
effects in rats have been noted from experiments \55\ with plasma F
levels in the 150 ng/ml range maintained for over 4 months. The primary
issue in causing neurodevelopmental effects (which have yet to be
quantified) is likely associated with aggregate and cumulative exposure
from multiple sources of fluorides (e.g., water, food, toothpaste)
which are greater contributors to total fluoride body burden and
uncontrollable variables in establishing this rule, which deals with
exposures to HF only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Lund K, Ekstrand J, Boe J, S[oslash]strand P, and Kongerud
J. (1997) Exposure to hydrogen fluoride: an experimental study in
humans of concentrations of fluoride in plasma, symptoms, and lung
function. Occup Environ Med. 54(1):32-37.
\55\ Oencue, M, Kocak, A, Karaoz, E; Darici, H; Savilk, E; and
Gultekin, F (2007) Effect of long-term fluoride exposure on lipid
peroxidation and histology of testes in first- and second-generation
rats. Biological Trace Element Research 118:260-268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA also disagrees with the comment that a children's default
safety factor of 10 should be added to the CalEPA REL for HF. In
response to the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the FQPA (1996)\56\
to the EPA non-cancer reference value derivation, the agency evaluated
its methods for considering children's risk in the development of
reference values. As part of its response, the EPA (i.e., the Science
Policy Council and Risk Assessment Forum) established the RfD/RfC
Technical Panel to develop a strategy for implementing the FQPA and
examine the issues relative to protecting children's health and
application of the 10X safety factor. One of the outcomes of the
Technical Panel's efforts was an in depth review of a number of issues
related to the RfD/RfC process (U.S. EPA 2002). The most critical
aspect in the derivation of a reference value pertaining to the FQPA
has to do with variation between individual humans and is accounted for
by a default uncertainty factor when no chemical-specific data are
available. The EPA reviewed the default UF for inter-human variability
and found the EPA's default value of 10 adequate for all susceptible
populations and lifestages, including children and infants. The EPA
also recommends the use of chemical-specific data in preference to
default uncertainty factors when available (U.S. EPA, 1994, 2011) and
is developing Agency guidance to facilitate consistency in the
development and use of data-derived extrapolation factors for RfCs and
reference doses (RfDs) (U.S. EPA, 2011).^{57 58} In agreement
with the recommendations of the RfC review, CalEPA chronic REL for HF
was derived using an inter-individual uncertainty factor of 10, which
is considered adequate by the EPA for accounting for all susceptible
populations and lifestages, including children and infants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide: Regulating
Pesticides. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). 1996. Available
at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/backgrnd.htm.
\57\ U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation
reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry.
(EPA/600/8-90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0160.
\58\ U.S. EPA (2011). Office of the Science Advisor, Risk
Assessment Forum. Recommended Use of Body Weight\3/4\ as the Default
Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. February 2011. EPA/
100/R11/0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the comment that CalEPA's Hot Spots Risk Assessment
Guidelines

[[Page 65494]]

(1999) have been ``superseded'' by the more recent guidelines released
in February 2015, the EPA reviewed the February 2015 Guidelines
information provided by the commenter and concluded that this
information does not include methods for conducting hazard
identification and dose response assessments, which are the analyses
that preclude the derivation of a reference value. Therefore, the
information provided by the commenter does not apply to the CalEPA REL
derivation methods.
The commenter's assertion that the NATA database does not contain
HF is incorrect; NATA 2005 (cited above by the commenter) does include
noncancer risk estimates for HF. The HF cancer risks are not included
in NATA because a quantitative cancer analysis for HF does not exist.
Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's decision to
set a HBEL for Cl2 and stated the EPA does not have the
authority to set Cl2 standards under CAA section 112(d)(4)
because the EPA does not have reliable scientific data demonstrating a
``safe'' threshold for Cl2 and has not demonstrated
Cl2 presents no cancer risk. Two commenters noted that in
the proposal, the EPA stated that, ``the agency presumptively considers
Cl2 to be a threshold pollutant.'' The commenters asserted
that a presumption is not adequate for EPA to justify setting a health-
based standard for Cl2 under CAA section 112(d)(4).
One commenter stated that it is possible that Cl2 is
carcinogenic and noted that Cl2 has not undergone a complete
evaluation and determination of human carcinogenic potential under the
IRIS program.\59\ The IARC and the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl2 gas for human
carcinogenicity. The commenter stated that the absence of data showing
carcinogenicity is not the same as data demonstrating that a substance
is not carcinogenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the commenter, Congress authorized CAA section
112(d)(4) standards only where a threshold ``has been established.'' In
other words, there must be an already-established threshold for which
there is direct evidence that the pollutant presents ``no'' harm at the
threshold level of exposure, and the law requires ``well-established''
factual evidence.\60\ The commenter asserted that the EPA is not
authorized to set risk-based standards based on a ``presumption'' of
the existence of a safe level of exposure and that by doing so, the EPA
would violate the law and fail to ensure adequate protection from the
health risks of hazardous pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that the EPA cannot set a health threshold for
Cl2 based on a chronic inhalation study on monkeys because
that study did not determine a NOAEL. The commenter asserted that CAA
section 112(d)(4) does not permit risk-based standards where a NOAEL
has not been determined. The commenter stated that, at a minimum,
Congress required that a threshold be based on the `` `no observable
[adverse] effects level' (NOAEL) below which human exposure is
presumably `safe.' '' \61\ If there is no established non-zero
``threshold'' level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has
no deleterious health effects, then the commenter asserted that the EPA
cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant at a given level
presents ``no'' harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two commenters stated that IRIS contains ``no data'' on an RfC for
chronic inhalation exposure.\62\ The ATSDR MRL on which the proposed
Cl2 threshold is based is a ``screening value[] only'' and
``[is] not [an] indicator[] of health effects.'' \63\ According to the
ATSDR, ``Exposures to substances at doses above MRLs will not
necessarily cause adverse health effects and should be further
evaluated,'' ``MRLs are intended to serve only as a screening tool to
help you decide if you should more closely evaluate exposures to a
substance found at a site,'' and ``uncertainties are associated with
[the] techniques'' used to derive MRLs.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine.
\63\ ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005
Update): Appendix F, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 2005).
\64\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter stated that the MRL does not account for the
potentially greater susceptibility of children, infants, and fetuses to
Cl2 exposures \65\ and noted that CalEPA has recognized that
Cl2 is a toxic air contaminant ``that may disproportionately
impact infants and children'' because it can exacerbate asthma.\66\
Therefore, the commenter asserted the MRL does not reflect an
``established'' safe health threshold at which exposure presents ``no''
adverse effects and that it is unlawful for the EPA to set CAA section
112(d)(4) standards for Cl2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine at 20-21
(observing that a value similar to the MRL could be calculated using
the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) approach if an
uncertainty factor of only 3 for human variability is used and no
child-safety uncertainty factor is used).
\66\ CalEPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the
Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. As part of the risk
analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated
all the available and relevant scientific evidence on Cl2
(as discussed in detail previously in this section) and concluded that
there is no evidence that Cl2 is a carcinogen and that this
information is sufficient to support this regulatory decision. The MRL
for Cl2 was developed using the benchmark dose analysis
method, which has been widely adopted across the risk assessment
community and by the EPA's Risk Assessment Forum \67\ as a more
reliable estimate of a threshold for an effect than a NOAEL or LOAEL.
As a result, the REL for Cl2 does define a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ U.S. EPA (2012) Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/100/R-12/001, June 2012.
Available online at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the assertion that the MRL does not take into
consideration the potential for greater potential effects in children,
in the development of the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine,\68\ ATSDR
performed an exhaustive review of all of the relevant health effects
data available at the time. Until new information becomes available,
the Cl2 MRL is the most credible, scientifically grounded
toxicity assessment for Cl2 and the most appropriate
reference value to use in this regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
2010. Toxicological profile for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk from
Cl2 exposure and the evidence of an existing threshold below
which Cl2 is not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA
considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA
section 112(d)(4) for Cl2.
Comment: One commenter referenced an NAS review of chemical health
evaluations in the United States that concluded improvements in both
chemical testing and risk assessment are needed to assure current risk
evaluations protect people from toxic chemicals.\69\ The NAS
recommended the EPA use ``A consistent, unified

[[Page 65495]]

approach for dose-response modeling that includes formal, systematic
assessment of background disease processes and exposures, possible
vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a
chemical's dose-response relationship in humans; that approach
redefines the RfD or RfC as a risk-specific dose that provides
information on the percentage of the population that can be expected to
be above or below a defined acceptable risk with a specific degree of
confidence.'' The NAS also observed that ``[n]oncancer effects do not
necessarily have a threshold, or low-dose nonlinearity'' and found that
``[b]ecause the RfD and RfC do not quantify risk for different
magnitudes of exposure but rather provide a bright line between
possible harm and safety, their use in risk-risk and risk-benefit
comparisons and in risk-management decision-making is limited.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ See National Research Council of the National Academies,
Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First Century: A Vision and a
Strategy (2007); National Research Council of the National
Academies, Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks
Ahead (2008); NAS, Science and Decisions.
\70\ Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk
Assessments to Protect Human Health (2012), available at https://www.nrdc.org/health/files/strengthening-toxic-chemical-riskassessments-report.pdf (citing NAS, Science and Decisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that there may be no safe threshold in the
human population for many chemicals and that newer studies show many
chemicals increase the risk of various noncancer health effects--such
as reproductive harm and neurological effects--at low doses, without
any scientifically identifiable threshold.\71\ The commenter noted that
even if a threshold is established for an individual, when risk is
assessed across a diverse population, it is unlikely the same threshold
applies to all individuals because some people are more vulnerable than
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ Janssen et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk
Assessments to Protect Human Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that, to address the fact that very low levels
of non-carcinogen exposures can pose health risks, NAS recommended that
cancer and chronic non-cancer risk assessment use the same
approach.\72\ The commenter noted that the use of RfCs for dose-
response risk assessment of chronic non-cancer health effects may
significantly underestimate risk: ``For these health effects, risk
assessments focus on defining the reference dose (RfD) or reference
concentration (RfC), which is defined as a dose `likely to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects' over a lifetime of
exposure. In actual fact, these levels may pose appreciable risks.''
\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8-9, 265-66.
\73\ Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk
Assessments to Protect Human Health at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter asserted that the EPA ignored the best available,
current science showing that pollutants have health effects at low
doses in its evaluation of health thresholds for HCl, HF, and
Cl2 and ignored NAS's recommendation that the EPA use
similar approaches for chronic non-cancer as for cancer risk
assessment, which presumes deleterious health effects for any amount of
exposure. According to the commenter, the EPA lacked sufficient data to
demonstrate that these pollutants do not cause harm at low levels of
exposure over time and cannot be certain that there exists an
established, safe health threshold at the proposed thresholds. The
commenter also stated that, because it must be assumed that these
pollutants cause harm at low doses, it is impossible for the EPA to
meet the CAA's requirement for an ``ample margin of safety.'' The
commenter concluded the EPA's use of CAA section 112(d)(4) standards
for HCl, HF, and Cl2 is indefensible because the EPA
determined the thresholds based on studies that did not identify a
level at which no health effects were observed (i.e., a NOAEL) and the
EPA itself has low confidence in the proposed thresholds.
Response: The NAS has recognized that many of the recommended
changes for the IRIS Program will need to be incorporated over a number
of years and further recommended that assessments continue to be
developed as the recommendations are implemented (i.e., the regulatory
process should not be halted until all recommendations can be enacted).
Improvements will thus be made over time and the best science available
will be used in the interim. Further, the EPA has a legal obligation to
proceed with regulatory action based on the best, currently available
tools.
The EPA's conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold
pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered
in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is
agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals
across agencies, e.g., the EPA's IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The
toxicity assessments (which may include noncancer and/or cancer
toxicity assessments) provided by these authoritative bodies are widely
vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer
review processes before they are published. In addition, the SAB has
endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to
support EPA's risk assessments in the RTR program.
Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been
classified as carcinogenic or suggestive of the potential to be
carcinogenic, individually or in combination by existing authoritative
bodies including the EPA, CalEPA, IARC, OECD, and the European
Community. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for
any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold
below which HCl, HF and Cl2 are not expected to cause
adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health
threshold standards under CAA 112(d)(4) for these pollutants.
2. Co-Benefits
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's proposal not to set
MACT standards for acid gases did not fully consider the co-benefits of
controlling criteria pollutants. The commenter noted that the
legislative history makes clear that employing a CAA section 112(d)(4)
standard rather than a conventional MACT standard ``shall not result in
adverse environmental effect which would otherwise be reduced or
eliminated.'' \74\ The EPA asserted that where there is an established
health threshold, the agency may weigh additional factors in making a
judgment as to whether to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards or MACT
standards, including ``[c]o-benefits that would be achieved via the
MACT standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or
criteria pollutants'' (79 FR 75622). The commenter asserted that it is
impossible to make this assessment without evaluating the full
collateral benefits of a MACT standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter noted that the EPA has recognized that MACT standards
for HCl in other source categories resulted in reductions in emissions
of PM, hydrogen cyanide, and other criteria and HAP pollutants and has
relied upon the co-benefits of these reductions as a basis for not
setting risk-based standards for those other source categories.\75\

[[Page 65496]]

However, for BSCP and clay ceramics plants, the EPA only considered the
co-benefits of reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2). The
commenter argued the EPA should have considered the significant
reductions in PM, hydrogen cyanide, and other pollutants that would
likely result from MACT standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2, as
these are the same reductions that the EPA considered in its past
rulemakings. The commenter stated that these reductions will provide
enormous health and environmental benefits that would not occur if CAA
section 112(d)(4) standards are finalized instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and
Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 54970,
54984 (Sept. 9, 2010) (``Setting technology-based MACT standards for
HCl . . . would likely also result in additional reductions in
emissions of mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-
volatile compounds.''); id. at 54,985 (``Setting an HCl standard
under 112(d)(2) and (3) allows the Agency to also address'' HCN,
ammonia, and other pollutants.); National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry, 74 FR 21136, 21160 (May 6, 2009) (``[S]etting a MACT
standard for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant amount of
control for other pollutants emitted by cement kilns, most notably
SO2 and other acid gases, along with condensable PM,
ammonia, and semi-volatile compounds.''); 75 FR 32030 (``[S]etting
conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would result
in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most
notably SO2, non-condensable PM, and other non-HAP acid
gases (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in
additional reductions in emissions of mercury and other HAP metals
(e.g., selenium).''); 76 FR 25051 (``[S]etting conventional MACT
standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would result in significant
reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably
SO2, PM, and other non-HAP acid gases (e.g., hydrogen
bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in
emissions of Hg and other HAP metals (e.g., Se).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: Although not explicitly stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the EPA agrees with the commenter that MACT standards
for acid gases for BSCP manufacturing facilities are associated with
additional reductions of PM emissions (approximately 460 tpy in the
third year following promulgation of the standards) and non-Hg HAP
metals emissions. No additional PM or non-Hg HAP metals emission
reductions would be expected from sanitaryware tunnel kilns because it
is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT
floor emission limits for HF and HCl without additional APCD. The EPA
has no information suggesting that HCN is emitted from BSCP or clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities, so no reduction in HCN would be
expected from MACT standards for HF, HCl, and Cl2.
For the past rulemakings in which the EPA considered co-benefits as
part of a CAA section 114(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA did not quantify
the PM emissions reductions associated with MACT standards (see 79 FR
75641, footnote 27), so a direct comparison of the co-benefits of the
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
with the co-benefits of these other rules for PM is not possible. The
only pollutant with quantified emissions reductions in the co-benefits
analyses for these other rulemakings was SO2, so that was
the pollutant highlighted in the co-benefits analysis for BSCP and clay
ceramics at proposal. The additional nationwide reductions of
SO2 that would be attributable to MACT standards for acid
gases in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are estimated to be only 4,700
tpy in the third year following promulgation of the standards. No
additional nationwide reductions of SO2 would be
attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP because it is anticipated that all sanitaryware
tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits without
additional APCD. As noted at proposal, these reductions are
substantially lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other
industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a HBEL, and it
would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit.
3. Ecosystem Impacts
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the ecological
impacts of the proposed HBEL for acid gases. The commenter stated that
federal, state and local agencies have struggled for years to reduce
emissions of SO2 and other acid gases to prevent the
devastating effects of acid rain on large ecosystems and noted the
proposed standards would likely result in the acidification of the
ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing
sources. The commenter asserted the ecological impact analysis of the
emissions standards for this proposal is inadequate.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ecological
analysis is inadequate. The environmental screening analysis evaluated
potential damage and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic
direct exposure to HCl and HF emitted by clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities and BSCP manufacturing facilities into the air. The chronic
90-day benchmarks used in the environmental risk screen for the acid
gases are shown in Table 7 of this preamble and discussed in the
following section.

Table 7--Acid Gas Benchmarks Included in the Environmental Risk Screen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic 90-day
Acid gas benchmark in
[mu]g/m\3\ \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrochloric acid--LOEL................................. \b\50
Hydrofluoric acid--Plant Community LOEL................. 0.5
Hydrofluoric acid--Plant Community LOEL................. 0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Micrograms per cubic meter.
\b\ Note that the human health RfC is 20 [micro]g/m\3\, which is lower
than the ecological benchmark.

For HCl, the EPA identified chronic benchmark concentrations as
described in a 2009 EPA document on RTR risk assessment
methodologies.\76\ The chronic benchmark for HCl was based on a lowest
observed effects level (LOEL) from a short-term exposure (20 minutes)
that related HCl concentration to ``changes'' in the leaves of 7 out of
8 plant species as reported by Lerman et al.\77\ It was the lowest
exposure concentration at which effects of any type were seen (visible
injury to some proportion of leaves). Haber's law was used to
extrapolate the 1.5 mg/m\3\ LOEL concentration (20-minute exposure) to
a 0.5 mg/m\3\ concentration expected to produce the same effect after 1
hour. The 1-hour estimated LOEL was extrapolated to a chronic benchmark
by dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.050 mg/m\3\, or 50 [micro]g/
m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0044.
\77\ Lerman, S., O.C. Taylor, and E.F. Darley, 1976.
Phytotoxicity of Hydrogen Chloride Gas with a Short-Term Exposure.
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 10, pp. 873-878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations for
plants in the environmental screening analysis. The value of 0.5 [mu]g
HF/m\3\ is based on the Washington State criterion for gaseous HF and
represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 [mu]g HF/m\3\ is based on the
Environment Canada criteria and also represents a LOEL.
To protect vegetation from adverse effects resulting from HF
exposure, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment \78\
recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 [mu]g/m\3\ over a 30-
to 90-day period; HF concentrations can be higher for shorter
exposures). Environment Canada \79\ defined the effect represented by
the level of 0.4 [mu]g HF/m\3\ as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality
Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian Environmental Quality
Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Winnipeg. Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1-896997-34-1. Available at
https://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/.
\79\ EC. (Environment Canada). 1996. National Ambient Air
Quality Objectives for Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). Science Assessment
Document. A Report by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality
Objectives and Guidelines. July. ISBN 0-662-25641-7, Catalogue En42-
17/6-1997. Available online at: https://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/ap50_rio_tinto_alcan/documents/DQ3.1.1.pdf.

The level above which there are demonstrated effects on human
health and/

[[Page 65497]]

or the environment. It is scientifically based and defines the
boundary between the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL)
and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). It is considered
to be the level of exposure just below that most likely to result in
a defined and identifiable but minimal effect. The reference levels
have no safety factors applied to them, as they are related directly
to the LOAEL, and are the most conservative estimates of the effect
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
level.

High concentrations of HF in the air have also been linked to
fluorosis in livestock. However, the HF concentrations at which
fluorosis in livestock occur are higher than those at which plant
damage begins. Therefore, the benchmarks for plants are protective of
both plants and livestock.
For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk
screen indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentration
of HCl around each facility (i.e., the area-weighted average
concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did
not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological
benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any
facility. For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the
area-weighted average modeled concentration of HF around each Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing facility did not exceed the ecological
benchmark. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations
of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological
benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no
greater than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each
facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or
widespread environmental effects.
For BSCP Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen
indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl
and HF around each facility (i.e., the area-weighted average
concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did
not exceed the ecological benchmarks. In addition, the area over which
the HCl or HF benchmarks were exceeded was less than 1 percent of the
offsite modeling domain for each facility in the category, indicating
that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental
effects.
The EPA did not conduct an assessment of the potential for
emissions of HCl to cause acidification in close proximity to the
sources in this category. Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid
rain, primarily occurs when emissions of SO2 and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere (with water, oxygen,
and oxidants) to form various acidic compounds.\80\ Although some
studies indicate that HCl emissions could contribute to acidification
around emission sources in certain environments,\81\ its overall effect
relative to NOX and SO2 emissions would be small.
In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their
assertion that the proposed standards would result in the acidification
of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and structural clay
products manufacturing facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to
Congress, 2005. Also see--https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/.
\81\ Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental
Change. Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187-1894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cumulative Effects
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA did not fully
consider the cumulative effects of exposure to HAP when proposing the
health-based standard under CAA section 112(d)(4). The commenter
asserted that the agency assumed there are no cumulative health and
environmental impacts of concern and argued the EPA cannot ensure that
its proposed standards include an ample margin of safety without
properly accounting for the additive and/or synergistic effects of
multiple pollutants and the cumulative effects of nearby emissions.
Another commenter stated that the EPA made no adjustments to the
HBEL it selected to account for the potential for harm from exposures
other than to the amounts of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it proposed to
allow. Specifically, the EPA must consider emissions of HCl, HF, and
Cl2 and other pollutants with biologically similar endpoints
(i.e., that cause respiratory harm) from sources in the source category
as well as from any co-located sources and other stationary or mobile
sources located such that their emissions affect people who are also
exposed to the emissions subject to the NESHAP. The commenter asserted
that the EPA cannot lawfully set limits ``with an ample margin of
safety'' when it ignores other sources of exposure and cumulative
health effects. The commenter asserted that, to protect exposed
populations, the regulated sources must reduce their emissions to a
level that ensures the total concentration of pollutants will remain
below the pollutants' respective health thresholds. The commenter
asserted that the EPA's decision to ignore the impact of other
emissions and background concentrations in the implementation of the
HBEL is therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and
otherwise not in accordance with law.
If the ambient concentration of a particular pollutant is already
at or near the health threshold, the commenter asserted that an
additional source of that pollutant or another pollutant with a
biologically similar endpoint can push the exposure over the threshold,
even if the additional source emits the pollutant at low
concentrations. The total risk that is unacceptable for the most-
exposed person in each source category must be reduced to consider the
cumulative effect of these additional exposures and to create a total
risk from all regulated source categories. The commenter stated that
EPA's assessment of cumulative risks posed by HCl, HF, and
Cl2 emissions ignored emissions from co-located sources (for
BSCP kilns), nearby sources and all other potential sources that could
contribute to background levels. The commenter noted that the EPA has
emissions information about co-located and nearby sources in its own
databases but failed to evaluate whether cumulative exposures would
exceed the health thresholds and to consider combined exposures. The
commenter reviewed reports from the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
History Online (ECHO) Web site for a number of BSCP and clay ceramics
facilities and provided notes on other major source facilities in close
proximity. The commenter stated that the EPA's justifications regarding
cumulative nearby emissions are legally inadequate and factually
inaccurate. The commenter stated that general assertions that other
operations are not ``commonly'' co-located with BSCP and clay ceramics
facilities, that such facilities are ``typically'' located on large
tracts of land, and that facilities are set back from property lines in
rural areas are insufficient to set the emissions standard at a level
that protects all people living near such facilities.
The commenter stated that information in the EPA's own databases
demonstrates that BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not
predominantly located in rural, sparsely populated areas, as the EPA
assumes. Many of the BSCP facilities are located in urban areas,
including Boral Bricks in Terre Haute, Indiana; Hanson Brick in
Columbia, South Carolina; General Shale Brick in Denver, Colorado; and
Cherokee Brick & Tile in Macon, Georgia.\82\ Similarly, in the clay

[[Page 65498]]

ceramics source category, only two of the sources are located in areas
considered ``rural'' by the United States Census Bureau: American
Marazzi Tile in Sunnyvale, Texas, and the Kohler Wisconsin Plant
outside of Sheboygan, Wisconsin.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural
Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Lists of 2010 Census Urban
Areas, https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.xls.
\83\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural
Classification and Urban Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html (revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching
plant location by city listed in address).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that the EPA's assessment of cumulative risks
does not meet generally accepted good practices in risk assessment. The
SAB recommended in May 2010 that the EPA incorporate ``aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area'' into its risk analysis.\84\ The
commenter stated that the EPA must assess the total and cumulative risk
burden, rather than only looking at each type of risk in a discrete,
separate way, and the EPA should be integrating its assessments and
performing a ``comprehensive risk assessment'' as the NAS has
emphasized. After first assessing the total cancer, chronic non-cancer,
and acute risks, for both inhalation and multipathway exposure, the EPA
also must assess the total risks.\85\ The EPA must aggregate health
risk for each pollutant, and each type of health risk, to create a
cumulative risk determination for an individual with maximum exposure.
Without a combined health risk metric, the EPA cannot make an ample
margin of safety determination that is based on the full picture of
health risk for these source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa
Jackson, Adm'r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA's Draft, EPA-SAB-10-007
at 6 (May 7, 2010).
\85\ CalEPA, OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts at 19-21, 25 (describing
total ``pollution burden'' as sum of exposures, public health
effects, and environmental effects); EPA, Concepts, Methods and Data
Sources for Cumulative Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals,
Exposures and Effects, at 4-42 to 4-46 (Aug. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the commenter stated that this proposal is contrary to the
EPA's recent conclusion in its regulation of power plant electric
generating units that ``the potential cumulative public health and
environmental effects of acid gas emissions'' did not allow for CAA
section 112(d)(4) standards.\86\ In that rulemaking, the EPA did not
receive facility-specific emissions information for all the acid gases
from units in the source category, co-located sources, and all nearby
sources. The EPA concluded that ``cumulative impacts of acid gases on
public health were not assuaged by the comments received.'' The
commenter stated that the EPA did not consider that information in this
rulemaking either, and just as in the power plant rulemaking, HBEL are
not lawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ Responses to Public Comments on EPA's National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, vol. 1. Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA did not
consider the potential impacts of nearby BSCP and clay ceramics
facilities or other nearby facilities in the determination of the HBEL
for each source category. The limit reflects the impacts of all
facilities in the source category. While the risk assessment did not
perform a detailed modeling analysis of other nearby facilities, based
on a proximity analysis of sources emitting acid gases, the EPA
concludes that the emissions from these facilities would not have
significantly impacted the analysis for several reasons. First, the
limit reflects a hazard index (HI) less than or equal to one at the
highest impacted receptor at each facility. For source categories like
BSCP and clay ceramics where emission release heights are low, the
highest impacted receptor is always very near (e.g., shares a common
fenceline) the facility, and ambient concentrations fall quickly with
distance from the source. Because of this, other facilities would have
to be very near a BSCP or clay ceramics facility and have relatively
high emissions to have any significant impact on the receptor with the
highest estimated concentration from the BSCP or clay ceramics
emissions. As in risk assessments performed under the Risk and
Technology Review program, the EPA did not model the nearby sources in
the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) because that inventory has not
received the same level of review and quality assurance that the BSCP
emissions have for the purposes of this rulemaking.
Although the EPA did not model the other nearby facilities, the EPA
did compare the location of all sources emitting acid gases with the
locations of the BSCP and clay ceramics facilities. The EPA found that
only four facilities emitted acid gases within 1 kilometer of any BSCP
facility. Beyond 1 kilometer, we would expect very little coincidental
impacts from multiple low level sources emitting the same pollutants.
The largest of these facilities emitted less than 12 tpy of HCl-
equivalent emissions, or less than 5 percent of the emissions limit.
The estimated HI for this BSCP facility was 0.6, so an increase of 5
percent in emissions would result in an increase in HI of at most 5
percent and, thus, not increase the HI above a value of 1. There are no
other sources emitting acid gases within 1 kilometer of any clay
ceramics facility.
Also, for the BSCP plant with the highest estimated HI, there are
no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 5 kilometers of
the facility. For the clay ceramics plant with the highest estimated
HI, there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within
10 kilometers of the facility. Thus, we would not expect emissions of
acid gases from other sources to contribute significantly at the
receptors where the maximum HI occurs due to BSCP or clay ceramic
emissions, and the HI at these receptors would not exceed 1.
5. Risk Assessment
Comment: One commenter stated that the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3)
meteorological data used for dispersion calculations was insufficient
because it included data for only 1 year (2011) from only 824
meteorological stations. The commenter asserted that this provides a
very limited snapshot of air quality data and, therefore, is
insufficient to determine with confidence that exposures at the
proposed emissions standards pose ``no risk'' of adverse health
effects. The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary to set
CAA section 112(d)(4) standards without more extensive air quality
information.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the
meteorological data were insufficient to perform the risk assessment.
Although 5 years of meteorological data are preferred for assessing
chronic exposures and risks, we use a single year (2011) of
meteorological data in our risk assessments because of model run times
for the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3) air dispersion model (AERMOD).
Because we frequently run AERMOD for an entire source category with
many individual emissions points and for many receptors, using 5 years
of meteorological data would increase already significant model run
times by a factor of five compared to a single year. In a sensitivity
analysis of the impact of using a single year of meteorological data
compared to 5 years,\87\ we found that modeled concentrations differed
by less than 10 percent on average and, thus, the use of

[[Page 65499]]

1 year of meteorological data is not likely to appreciably affect the
results of the risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The meteorological data we used were obtained from the Automated
Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program, which is a joint effort of
the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The ASOS serves as the
nation's primary surface weather observing network and is designed to
support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the
same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and
climatological research communities. With the largest and most modern
complement of weather sensors, ASOS has significantly expanded the
amount of available meteorological information. The ASOS works non-
stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of
the year. The ASOS is installed at more than 900 airports across the
country, and our meteorological library for the year 2011 includes all
of these that are without a significant number of missing hours (824
stations).
Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA's modeling understates
chronic health risk by assuming that chronic exposure to HAP from BSCP
and clay ceramic manufacturing sources occurs at the census block
centroid and not at the facility fence or property line. The commenters
stated that exposures are likely to be higher for people living closest
to the plants, especially because census blocks can cover a large area
and the center of a census block is almost always farther away from the
facility than the facility's property line. One commenter noted that
even if the area near the property line is not developed, over time
homes and businesses could locate closer to the facility. While it is
possible that population distribution is homogenous over a census
block, the commenter stated this assumption is not necessarily accurate
in considering the predicted impacts from the location of a source.
One commenter stated that no effort was made to move receptor
points closer to the facility to assess chronic or cancer risk, even in
those instances where local residents live nearer to a facility than
the geographic centroid of the census block. This conflicts with the
recommendation of the SAB, which has urged the EPA to consider
``specific locations of residences.'' \88\ The commenter stated that
the EPA failed to adjust receptor points for residents living on the
fence-line even though the HEM-AERMOD system allows for such an
adjustment, and that such an adjustment was appropriately made for the
estimation of acute health risks (see, e.g., 79 FR 75644). The
commenter stated that the EPA cannot justify failing to analyze chronic
health effects in a similar manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\88\ Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa
Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA's Draft entitled,
``Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies:
For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--
MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing'' at 4. May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another commenter agreed and stated that the EPA can use HEM-3 to
identify the maximum individual risk at any point in a census block
that is within a 50-kilometer radius from the center of the modeled
facility. The commenter recommended the EPA not use the predicted
chronic exposures at the census block centroid as a surrogate for the
exposure concentrations for all people living in that block; instead,
the EPA should use the maximum individual risk in its risk assessments,
irrespective of its location in the census block.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that we
relied solely on the census block centroids as receptors for human
exposure. As we have noted in the development of RTR regulations, in a
national-scale assessment of lifetime inhalation exposures and health
risks from facilities in a source category, it is appropriate to
identify exposure locations where it may be reasonably expected that an
individual will spend a majority of his or her lifetime. Further, in
determining chronic risks, it is appropriate to use census block
information on where people actually reside, rather than points on a
fenceline, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to
individuals living near such facilities.
Census blocks are the finest resolution available as part of the
nationwide population data (as developed by the U.S. Census Bureau);
each is typically comprised of approximately 50 people, or about 20
households. In the EPA risk assessments, the geographic centroid of
each census block containing at least one person is used to represent
the location where all the people in that census block live. The census
block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then becomes the
location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of that census
block is assumed to experience the maximum individual risk. In some
cases, because actual residence locations may be closer to or farther
from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or
underestimate of the actual annual concentrations (although there is no
systematic bias for average levels). Given the relatively small
dimensions of census blocks in densely populated areas, there is little
uncertainty introduced by using the census block centroids in lieu of
actual residence locations. There is the potential for more uncertainty
when census blocks are larger, although there is still no systematic
bias. The EPA concludes that the most appropriate locations at which to
estimate chronic exposures and risks are the census block centroids
because: (1) Census blocks are the finest resolution available in the
national census data, (2) facility fencelines do not usually represent
locations where chronic exposures are likely and (3) there is no bias
introduced into the estimate of the MIR by using census block centroid
locations. In addition, in its peer review of the methodologies used to
estimate risks as part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the EPA's SAB
endorsed this approach.
In addition to the approach described above, the EPA recognizes
that where a census block centroid is located on industrial property or
is large and the centroid is less likely to be representative of the
block's residential locations, the block centroid may not be the
appropriate surrogate. For BSCP facilities, in cases where a census
block centroid was within 300 meters of any emission source (and
therefore possibly on facility property), we viewed aerial images of
the facility to determine whether the block centroid was likely located
on facility property. Likewise, we examined aerial images of all large
census blocks within 1 kilometer of any emission source. If the block
centroid did not represent the residential locations within that block,
we relocated it to better represent them and/or we added additional
receptors for residences nearer to the facility than the centroid. For
this source category, we relocated 14 census blocks that appeared to be
on facility property or were otherwise not representative of the
population within the block, and we modeled an additional 15 receptors
in cases where the single block centroid was inadequate to characterize
the population within the census blocks.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's risk assessment did
not account for the synergistic health effects from the potential
exposure to multiple acid gas pollutants. Specifically, the EPA did not
demonstrate that no health effects would occur if a person is
chronically exposed to a combination of

[[Page 65500]]

HCl, HF, and Cl2, even if the sum of the exposures
(converted into ``equivalent'' units) does not exceed the ``HCl-
equivalent'' limit. The commenter also argued the EPA failed to provide
evidence showing that the acid gases would not have synergistic effects
that could cause harm at a chronic exposure concentration that is lower
than the RfC, REL, or MRL of each pollutant. The commenter asserted the
EPA did not seek outside peer review by the SAB or other body or
request public comment on its use of dose-response values to exchange
exposures of one acid gas pollutant for another prior to proposing use
of ``HCl-equivalents'' standards.
The commenter stated that since the EPA based the ratio for
comparing HF and Cl2 emissions to HCl emissions on the RfC,
REL or MRL values, and those values are uncertain and flawed (see
previous comments in this section V.A, explaining that values were not
based on a NOAEL, and the EPA has ``low'' confidence in the HCl RfC),
the HCl-equivalent method cannot assure ``an ample margin of safety.''
The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) requires the EPA to
set separate standards for HCl and HF, and the EPA's decision to set a
HCl-equivalent emissions standard is unlawful and arbitrary.
Response: The EPA believes that groups of chemicals can behave
antagonistically or synergistically, such that combined exposure can
either cause less or more harm, depending on the chemicals. To address
pollutant mixtures in the determination of the HBEL, the EPA generally
used the same methodology used in RTR assessments, which is to follow
the EPA's mixture guidelines.^{89 90} This methodology has been
formally peer reviewed by the SAB.\91\ Following the mixture
guidelines, the EPA aggregated noncancer hazard quotients (HQs) of HAP
that act by similar toxic modes of action or that affect the same
target organ. This process creates, for each target organ, a target-
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI), defined as the sum of HQs for
individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system. All TOSHI
calculations were based exclusively on effects occurring at the
``critical dose'' (i.e., the lowest dose that produces adverse health
effects). The EPA actually calculated the HBEL conservatively by
including HF in the calculation of equivalent emissions even though it
affects a different target organ than HCl and Cl2, thereby
allowing the development of a single emissions limit for all acid
gases. The conservatism in the limit due to the inclusion of pollutants
with different target organ systems would have the effect of
ameliorating potential synergism of the acid gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ U.S. EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment
of Chemical Mixtures. EPA-630-R-98-002. September 1986.
\90\ U.S. EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. August 2000.
\91\ U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2010. Review of EPA's
draft entitled, ``Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing.'' May 7, 2010. Available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/
sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-
10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Ample Margin of Safety
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's decision to set an
HCl-equivalent HBEL, rather than set separate HBEL for HCl, HF, and
Cl2. The commenter stated that, by setting one ``HCl-
equivalent emissions'' limit at 250 tpy (57 lb/hr) for BSCP tunnel
kilns and 600 tpy (140 lb/hr) for clay ceramics sources, each source is
free to emit whatever combination of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it
would like, provided the aggregate of the ``HCl-equivalent emissions''
does not exceed the limit. The commenter also noted that the HCl-
equivalent HBEL for clay ceramics does not include Cl2 and
requested that the EPA explain how it converted Cl2 into
HCl-equivalent emissions.
The commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(2) mandates that the
EPA ``shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the
hazardous air pollutants subject to this section.'' The commenter
asserted that it is unlawful for the EPA not to set an emissions limit
for a CAA section 112-listed pollutant (Nat'l Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d at
634) and concluded that even if the EPA believes the health risks posed
by HF and Cl2 emissions can be translated into HCl-
equivalent units, the proposed ``HCl-equivalent'' limit contravenes the
EPA's obligation to set CAA section 112(d) standards for each
pollutant.
The commenter also stated that the EPA's approach raises questions
about whether the use of ``HCl-equivalents'' results in limits that
protect people against all of a pollutant's health risks with ``an
ample margin of safety,'' as required by CAA section 112(d)(4). The
commenter argued that because pollutants cause different adverse health
effects, they are not ``equivalent'' pollutants that cause
``equivalent'' health effects at ``equivalent'' concentrations of
exposure. The commenter further argued the RfC for HCl is based on a
study of respiratory toxicity and is meant to protect individuals
against respiratory harms from chronic exposures, while the REL used
for HF is based on a study of skeletal fluorosis (increased bone
density) and is meant to protect individuals against skeletal harm from
chronic exposures.\92\ The commenter noted that the EPA focused only on
the respiratory harm caused by the pollutants, when skeletal harm is
the most sensitive effect for HF, and the EPA failed to explain why
skeletal harm caused by a certain quantity of HF can be converted into
respiratory harm caused by HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 278. CalEPA
made it clear that its REL is for ``[i]ncreased bone density
(skeletal fluorosis),'' that the NOAEL was for ``chronic skeletal
fluorosis,'' and that ``[c]hanges in bone density . . . appear[s] to
be the most sensitive health effect for chronic exposure.'' OEHHA,
Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 272, 278-79. The principal
study on which the REL is based did observe an increase in the
incidence of acute respiratory disease, too, id. at 271, but the REL
was not primarily based on that health effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter also noted that the EPA does not claim to be using
HCl as a surrogate for HF or Cl2. The commenter stated that
the EPA previously stated that HCl cannot act as a surrogate for the
other acid gases because pollutants that act on humans in different
manners, at different doses, cannot stand in for one another (see 76 FR
25049 and 75 FR 32031).
Another commenter expressed concern the HCl-equivalent emissions
limit could mask exposures or emissions of concern for the most toxic
gas because the comparison would be dominated by a higher concentration
pertinent to the less toxic gases. The commenter asserted that there is
no analysis that justifies this combined metric and noted it would be
more justifiable if the substances were in the same order of magnitude
for potential potency. The commenter recommended that the EPA consider
whether these gases could contribute to the acid component of ambient
air that is thought to potentially contribute to cancer and other
effects because these impacts appear not to have been considered by the
EPA.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the
HBEL cannot be based on equivalent emissions of a single pollutant. For
the BSCP Manufacturing rulemaking, the EPA used an approach specific
for this NESHAP to set health-protective emissions limits that would
account for the multiple acid gas pollutants emitted by the BSCP
facilities. By converting the emissions of each acid gas or combination
of acid gases (HCl, Cl2 and

[[Page 65501]]

HF) to an HCl-equivalent emission, the EPA can estimate a single
exposure concentrations for comparison with the HCl reference value
(RfC). If the ratio of HCl exposure concentration to the HCl RfC value
remains at or below 1, the HBEL (HCl-equivalent emissions) would ensure
that the threshold values for any individual or combination of acid
gases would not be exceeded (i.e., remain at or below 1). The EPA used
the same approach to convert emissions of HF to an HCl-equivalent and
determine the HBEL for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP; the only
difference is that there are no valid Cl2 emissions data for
clay ceramics facilities, so Cl2 is not included in the
HBEL.
Comment: Two commenters generally supported the proposed HBEL and
stated that the EPA has conclusively demonstrated that the proposed
HBEL would provide an ample margin of safety for HCl, HF, and
Cl2 emissions from affected facilities. As the EPA explained
in the proposal, the analysis was based on site specific data from each
tunnel kiln, and the proposed HBEL was developed at a level that would
result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Because the potential
risks at facilities other than the worst-case facility are predicted to
be well below 1, the commenters stated that this analysis assures that
an ample margin of safety will be provided for the ``worst case''
facility in the industry and more than an ample margin will be provided
for all other affected facilities.
Conversely, another commenter contended that the EPA's proposed
HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) does not include ``an ample margin of
safety.'' The commenter disagreed with the approach the EPA used to
determine the CAA section 112(d)(4) limits. Specifically, the commenter
stated that by setting the limits at precisely the same level as the
threshold value, the EPA proposed to allow plants to emit acid gas
pollution that would expose people to amounts of pollution that reach
threshold levels.
The commenter stated that these limits do not include any ``margin
of safety,'' let alone an ``ample'' one, as the EPA is required to
include for CAA section 112(d)(4) standards. The commenter expressed
concern that under the EPA's approach, even the slightest uncertainty
in the EPA's estimates or low background levels of pollution can place
health at risk because plants can emit at the health threshold. The
commenter stated that the EPA did not explain how these limits would
protect public health with ``an ample margin of safety.'' \93\ The
commenter asserted that a margin of safety is supposed to provide
additional safety and account for uncertainty and variability that
might result in harm to individuals below the threshold. The commenter
further stated that an ``ample'' margin of safety must assure not only
extra room for safety, but a ``generous'' margin for safety.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ Mountain Commc'ns v. FCC, 355 F.3d 644, 648-49 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (agency must ``explain how its position can be reconciled''
with statutory requirements).
\94\ Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971) defines
``margin'' as ``a spare amount or measure or degree allowed or given
for contingencies or special situations'' and ``ample'' as
``generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or capacity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter noted that a TOSHI (which is the sum of the HQs) of
``one'' does not necessarily represent a safe level of exposure. The
commenter asserted the EPA characterizes a TOSHI or HQ of ``one'' or
less as exposures that ``are not likely to cause adverse health
effects'' (79 FR 75643), but did not provide any explanation why this
level would meet the statutory standard. According to the commenter,
Congress intended the standard to be set at a level at which there is
``no risk'' of ``adverse health effects,'' plus ``an ample margin of
safety (and not considering cost).'' \95\ For these reasons, the
commenter concluded that the proposed limits do not comply with the CAA
and could put public health at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter also expressed concern that the EPA did not take
steps to adjust the limits to reflect the uncertainties regarding
health exposures and effects. The EPA has factored in uncertainties and
vulnerability factors in other rulemakings, such as when determining a
Target Margin of Exposure under the FQPA, where the EPA considered
whether risks below the Target Margin of Exposure warranted increased
scrutiny and changes to allowable exposures.\96\ The commenter also
stated that the EPA's proposed limits would allow human exposures to
exceed the level that CalEPA has identified is the safety minimum.
Allowing human exposure to HCl concentrations above a threshold a state
agency determined may cause respiratory harm, the commenter contended,
would not provide the ample margin of safety required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ See, e.g., EPA, Sulfuryl Fluoride; Proposed Order Granting
Objections to Tolerances and Denying Request for a Stay, Proposed
Rule, 76 FR 3422, 3427 (Jan. 19, 2011) (explaining use of MOE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter further stated that the ``ample margin of safety''
language in CAA section 112(d)(4) requires that any standard that is
set under this authority must be sufficient to protect against
significant unforeseen consequences.\97\ The commenter stated that
because the ``ample margin of safety'' requirement is meant to protect
against risks that have not yet been identified in research, a CAA
section 112(d)(4) standard cannot be justified on grounds that the EPA
does not have sufficient evidence about the health risks posed by a HAP
or does not have the time or inclination to review the evidence that is
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ See, e.g., Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 598 F.2d 62, 81 (D.C.
Cir. 1978) (holding that the phrase `ample margin of safety' in the
Clean Water Act's toxic provisions required the EPA to protect
against as yet unidentified risks to human health, including those
``which research has not yet identified'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: For several reasons, the EPA disagrees with the commenter
who stated that the HBEL does not include an ample margin of safety.
First, the limit is based on the single facility in the source category
with the worst-case combination of meteorology and distance to nearest
residential receptor that leads to the highest ambient concentrations.
While the EPA estimates that the limit reflects an HI of one at this
facility, the HI at most other facilities would be significantly lower,
with approximately 90 percent of the facilities having an estimated HI
less than or equal to 0.5. Further as the standard is based on a 1-hour
emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis
conservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for an
entire year (8,760 hours). Also, the limit is based on estimated
ambient concentrations and not exposure concentrations. Exposure
concentrations are typically lower than ambient concentrations because
they reflect that people's activities (e.g., work, school) remove them
from their residential exposure locations for significant amounts of
time. For these reasons, the EPA concludes that the emission limit is
health protective (i.e., exposures will remain below the threshold
values) and this conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the
``ample margin of safety'' requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4).
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA
underestimated acute health risks in the evaluation of the risk of
acute harm from short-term exposures by ignoring variability in short-
term emissions. The commenter noted that the EPA calculated the 1-hour
emissions estimates for its modeling of acute harm by dividing the
annual emissions level by 8,760 hours per year instead of using a
default factor or emissions multiplier to account for higher-than-
average short-term

[[Page 65502]]

emissions. The commenter noted actual emissions over a 1-hour period
will at times exceed the average hourly emissions level used in the
modeling. The commenter asserted the EPA did not explain how this
approach captures peak short-term emissions levels or adequately
protects people from short-term exposures at levels above the average.
The commenter stated that the EPA has used emissions multipliers to
scale up average hourly emissions in air dispersion modeling for other
risk assessments.\98\ The commenter asserted that although emission
multipliers in risk assessments still underestimate risk, these
assessments show the EPA recognizes the need to use multipliers in
assessing health risks from short-term emissions. The commenter stated
that it is unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA not to use an emissions
multiplier for estimating risk for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide
Ingredient Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; Proposed
Rule, 77 FR 1268, 1279 (Jan. 9, 2012) (finalized at 79 FR 17340
(Mar. 27, 2014); see also National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 79 FR 60238, 60252 (Oct. 6,
2014) (applying ``an emission adjustment factor'' to ``average
annual hourly emission rates . . . to account for emission
fluctuations due to normal facility operations''); National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and
Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 78 FR
66108, 66122 (Nov. 4, 2013) (applying ``a conservative default
emissions multiplier of 10 to estimate the peak hourly emission
rates from the average rates'' as part of EPA's screening of
``worst-case acute impacts''); National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing, 76 FR 72770, 72785 (Nov. 25, 2011)
(applying an ``emissions multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak hourly
emission rates from the average rates'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter also stated that the EPA's calculation of 1-hour
emissions assumed plants are operating (and generating emissions) 24
hours per day, 365 days per year. The commenter noted that averaging
hourly emissions over the full calendar year produces lower hourly
emissions than if the EPA had used each plant's actual operating hours.
The EPA has information about each plant's operating hours and these
data show many units are not operating over the full calendar year. By
calculating the 1-hour emissions based on 8,760 operating hours, the
commenter asserted the EPA underestimated the risks of acute exposures
over shorter spans of time.
The commenter stated that because the EPA used short-term emissions
that are neither conservative nor realistic, the EPA cannot conclude
the standard assures ``an ample margin of safety.'' The commenter
stated that in two other recent rulemakings, the EPA found information
on short-term HCl emissions was insufficient to allow the EPA to
evaluate ``whether a chronic health-based emission standard for HCl
would ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health concerns.''
(75 FR 32031; 76 FR 25050). In these rulemakings, the commenter stated,
the EPA did not proceed with risk-based standards due to the lack of
this information. The commenter stated that the EPA is incorrectly
proceeding with the proposed health-based standards without accounting
for or quantifying peak short-term emissions.
Response: The use of an emissions multiplier to convert annual
emissions to peak 1-hour emissions (determination of peak emissions for
comparison with 1-hour health benchmarks) for acute (short-term) risk
calculations was not necessary for this analysis, because the HBEL
determined for the category is being promulgated as a mass of HCl-
equivalent emitted per hour. Similarly, plant hours of operation need
not be considered because the HBEL determined for the category is an
hourly limit. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule for BSCP,
``To assure that no source emits more than the 250 tpy HCl-equivalent
limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the
hourly equivalent of 250 tpy (57 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)''
(79 FR 75644). Similarly, for clay ceramics manufacturing, ``to assure
that no source emits more than the 600 tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a
single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly
equivalent of 600 tpy (140 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)'' (79 FR
75661).
The EPA concludes the risk analysis and subsequent standard meet an
``ample margin of safety'' in accordance with the CAA. The proposed
HBEL for the entire source category is based on an emissions level
corresponding to a maximum noncancer HI of one at the highest impacted
facility. All other facilities would have a lower risk than the highest
risk facility. Further, as the standard is based on a 1-hour emission
limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively
assumes that each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for an entire year
(8,760 hours).
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's evaluation of acute
health risks, stating that the approach is inadequate and does not
assure standards are based on a safe health threshold and include ``an
ample margin of safety.'' Specifically, the commenter expressed concern
that the proposed HBEL are based on the chronic dose-response
information and not on thresholds for acute health risks. The commenter
noted the EPA approximated exposures, used those estimates to develop
HQ values, and concluded ``there is low potential for acute risk'' when
the HQ values are less than or equal to one. If values above one were
identified, then the EPA examined additional information to determine
whether there was a potential for ``significant acute risks'' for those
living near the facility. The commenter noted that the EPA did not
explain why this method satisfies the CAA section 112(d)(4) requirement
that health-based standards be set at a level that ensures ``an amply
margin of safety'' for people living near the facility. The EPA's
evaluation is designed to determine whether any facilities pose
``significant acute risks''; however, the commenter stated that this is
not the statutory standard, and such a determination would not signify
that an ``ample margin of safety'' is included.
The commenter stated that for HF, the EPA's evaluation identified
numerous plants at which there were potential acute health risks.
Specifically, the EPA found 23 BSCP facilities exceeded the HQ value
for HF, with nearly half of those facilities exceeding the value by
four- or five-fold. For the clay ceramics category, the EPA found that
eight facilities exceeded the HQ value for HF. The additional analysis
the EPA performed to determine whether these facilities posed
``significant acute risks'' did not rule out the possibility of such
``significant acute risks.'' For these facilities, the EPA focused its
analysis on maximum offsite HQ values; however, the commenter noted
that many of the maximum offsite HQ values exceed one, thereby
indicating the potential for ``significant acute risks'' remained. The
commenter asserted that the EPA provided no support for why values
above one means there is no potential for ``significant acute risks.''
The commenter disagreed with the EPA's assertion that there is no
potential for ``significant acute risks'' because the risk assessment
assumes there is a person present at the location and time where the
maximum HQ value occurs and stated that relaxing conservative
assumptions about exposure in individual instances is arbitrary and
defeats the purpose of the evaluation. The EPA cannot pretend that the
person is not present and ignore the potential for harm. The EPA's
statement that a facility is not likely to emit only HF similarly
provides no assurance of safety. According to the commenter, the EPA
relaxed an assumption in the model because the model predicted an
outcome the EPA did not like. The

[[Page 65503]]

commenter stated the EPA provided no basis for its assertion that a
facility is unlikely to emit only HF or explain why a combination of HF
(for which the EPA found a potential for ``significant acute risks''),
HCl, and Cl2 emissions would not still pose ``significant
acute risks.''
The commenter stated that the EPA's use of acute exposure guideline
levels (AEGLs) and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPGs) to
assess acute risks cannot assure that exposure presents ``no risk'' of
health effects at those concentrations. The AEGL and ERPG values were
created for emergency exposure scenarios. The commenter stated that
levels defined for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures'' and
``emergency'' chemical releases or accidents are not appropriate for
measuring acute exposure risk. According to the SAB, indicated ``AEGL-2
and ERPG-2 values should never be used in residual risk assessments
because they represent levels that if exceeded could cause serious or
irreversible health effects.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA's
Draft at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that because the AEGL and ERPG numbers would
underestimate risk to the maximum exposed individual, AEGL and ERPG
values do not indicate ``safe'' thresholds that protect health with
``an ample margin of safety.'' For these reasons, the commenter
contends AEGL and ERPG values should not be used to set CAA section
112(d)(4) standards.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA's acute
assessment includes arbitrary decision-making and does not reflect an
ample margin of safety. The EPA is not required to regulate based
solely on the results of a conservative acute screening scenario which
assumes that a person will be present at a specific location and during
worst-case meteorological conditions. Rather, this initial screening
scenario is used as a starting point in the assessment of the potential
for acute effects.
For HCl and Cl2, the acute REL values for the pollutants
are not estimated to be exceeded even when using the screening
scenario, and the acute REL for HF is estimated to be exceeded only by
a factor of two for seven facilities using the screening scenario. The
other cases of higher exceedances mentioned by the commenter are
situations where the locations of the exceedances are on facility
property and, therefore, not considered for public health. The acute
REL is defined by CalEPA as ``the concentration level at or below which
no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure
duration. RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse
health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature.
RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the
population by the inclusion of uncertainty factors which are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties.
Regarding the use of AEGL and ERPG values, the EPA does not rely
exclusively upon these values for assessment of acute exposures.
Rather, the EPA's approach is to consider various acute health effect
reference values, including the California REL, in assessing the
potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the
potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to
HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB's peer review
of the EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a
wider range of available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than
we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the
SAB's acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays \100\ for
HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e.,
occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk
characterization. Because HCl, HF, and Cl2 all have 1-hour
REL values, the maximum estimated 1-hour concentrations were compared
to these values to assess the potential for acute health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, and available on-line at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA's risk
analysis ignored exposures from emissions of HCl, HF, Cl2,
and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints from units
subject to the proposed work practice standards, including emissions
during startup and shutdown, and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and
sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The commenter asserted that even though the
EPA stated that the work practice standards are intended to minimize
emissions, these sources are not included in the calculation of the CAA
section 112(d)(4) standards, and exposures to emissions from these
other sources will contribute to an individual's cumulative health
risks. The commenter asserted that the EPA does not know whether the
proposed HBEL will provide ``an ample margin of safety'' once emissions
from periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic
kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns are added to the levels of
pollution permitted by the proposed standards. For this reason, the
commenter stated that the proposed CAA section 112(d)(4) standards are
unlawful and arbitrary.
The commenter also stated that emissions during startup and
shutdown are expected to be uncontrolled, because the EPA did not
propose to require that BSCP and clay ceramics plants use APCD or other
methods to reduce emissions (such as mandating the use of clean fuels)
during these periods. The proposed work practice standards for periodic
and shuttle kilns do not require control technology and, according to
the commenter, are not anticipated to reduce emissions.
Finally, the commenter stated that the only reason startup and
shutdown periods and periodic and shuttle kilns are not subject to the
proposed CAA section 112(d)(4) limits is because the EPA exempted them
from CAA section 112(d). The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to
exclude those emissions from the health analysis solely because the EPA
proposed to regulate those sources of emissions under a different
subsection of the CAA. The commenter argued all exposures contribute to
the risk of harm, regardless of whether they are CAA section 112(d)-
regulated emissions or section CAA 112(h)-regulated emissions.
Response: The EPA disagrees that emissions during periods of
startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and
sanitaryware shuttle kilns will exceed the numerical HBEL. Regarding
the standards for periods of startup and shutdown, as noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule and further documented in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291,\101\ temperature is the main factor affecting
full production at BSCP plants. The kiln cars should be introduced into
the kiln at a steadily increasing push rate to facilitate development
of that specific kiln's firing temperature profile. Since emissions are
generated from the firing of the bricks and the fuel combusted, the EPA
has concluded that the maximum magnitude of emissions will occur when
all kiln cars have been

[[Page 65504]]

loaded with the maximum number of bricks and the maximum amount of fuel
is used. During startup, kiln operators will limit production until the
kiln has heated enough to begin normal operation. This is the point
whereby the standard transitions from a work practice to a numeric
limit. The opposite process occurs during shutdown. Fuel use will
decrease significantly so as to cool the kiln, and kiln operators will
slow production to a stop. Since emissions will be lower below this
point of maximum loading and fuel use, emissions will not rise above
the emission limit for all pollutants, including the acid gas limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith
Barnett, EPA. ``Additional documents.'' Dated June 25, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The owner or operator of each kiln will be required to determine
the startup production rate for the kiln. For kilns with an APCD, the
owner or operator will determine the minimum inlet temperature for the
APCD. For kilns that, through compliance testing once the compliance
date has been reached, have shown they are emitting under the emission
limits and thus do not have an APCD, the owner or operator will
determine the product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be
achieved before the kiln can reach full production. The startup
standards will be tied to the startup production rate never being
exceeded until the kiln reaches the minimum inlet temperature for the
APCD or the product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is
applicable. During shutdown, once the kiln falls below the minimum
inlet temperature for the APCD or the product-specific kiln temperature
profile, whichever is applicable, no additional product can be
introduced. These temperature limits will be required to be included in
the facility's records and kept on site. Thus, for periods of startup
and shutdown, the HBEL set for HCl, HF, and Cl2 will not be
surpassed during startup and shutdown.
In the case of sanitaryware shuttle kilns, the commenter is
mistaken that we did not mandate the use of clean fuels. The rule does
limit the fuels used to natural gas or equivalent, and also outlines
work practice standards relative to temperature cycles and maintenance
procedures designed to minimize HAP emissions (see Table 3 to subpart
KKKKK). The use of clean fuels applies for all times the kiln is
running, not just startup and shutdown. Therefore, the commenter is
incorrect that we are not requiring the use of clean fuels for startup
and shutdown relative to the operation of shuttle kilns.
The EPA also disagrees that just because the proposed work practice
standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not reflect the use of any
control technology, they are not anticipated to reduce emissions. As
the commenter has stated elsewhere, control technologies are not the
only means of limiting emissions. Control of parameters such as fuel,
operating temperature, combustion conditions, and throughput are also
effective means of limiting emissions, and these are the types of
parameters the EPA considered when finalizing the work practice
standards for periodic and shuttle kilns.
As discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 75662, CAA section 112(h)(1)
states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or
other requirements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections
112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the
Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard.
Section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA further defines the term ``not
feasible'' in this context to apply when ``the application of
measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations,'' which is
the case here. There are fewer BSCP periodic kilns and first-fire
sanitaryware shuttle kilns compared to tunnel kilns, and they tend to
be low-emitting sources compared to tunnel kilns,\102\ so their
emissions will not cause an exceedance of the health threshold. The
work practice standards we are finalizing will serve to ensure that
emissions from these sources continue to remain low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ For example, even assuming that lb/ton emissions are
similar for BSCP periodic and tunnel kilns, a comparison of annual
kiln design capacities (ton product/yr) for model BSCP periodic
kilns and tunnel kilns indicates that annual capacities for periodic
kilns are on average only 5 percent of annual capacities for tunnel
kilns. (For the basis of this calculation, see the memorandum
``Updated Inventory Database and Documentation for Brick and
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Final Rule'' in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 and the memorandum ``Final Rule: Documentation
of Database and Responses to the 1997 Information Collection Request
for Brick and Structural Clay Products'' in Docket ID No. A-99-30.)
In addition, in the BSCP industry, there are currently 120 periodic
kilns located at 15 facilities, compared to 168 tunnel kilns at 84
facilities. In the sanitaryware industry sector, there are currently
five first-fire shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first-fire tunnel
kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: One commenter stated that, to create standards that assure
``an ample margin of safety,'' the EPA is required to build a margin
into the HBEL for exposures to HCl, HF, Cl2, and other
pollutants with similar biological endpoints resulting from (a)
exceedances of the HCl, HF, and Cl2 standards, (b)
violations of the work practice standards applicable during startup and
shutdown, and (c) exceedances of other standards (e.g., MACT standards
for non-Hg HAP metals) that restrict pollutants with similar biological
endpoints. The commenter also stated that estimating short-term
emissions by averaging annual emissions does not reflect emissions
spikes that occur during plant malfunctions or upsets. The commenter
stated that malfunctions and upsets increase emissions and thereby pose
increased health risks that the EPA must consider.
The commenter stated that relevant chronic exposures include
exposures from exceedances and violations and noted that many
exceedances, such as those from malfunctions and upsets, are likely to
contribute significant emissions that can elevate an individual's total
exposures over time. The commenter also stated that the EPA explains
malfunction events can be significantly higher than emissions at any
other time of source operation (79 FR 75626). The commenter stated that
these emissions pose much higher short-term risks and can accumulate
and combine to increase public health impacts and risk and that
guarding against the health risks of releases of large amounts of HF
(for example) must be built into the HBEL through the margin of safety.
The commenter stated that HF exhibits characteristics in some
circumstances that can make it uniquely hazardous over large areas. For
example, HF molecules may associate with one another (i.e., form larger
molecules like H4F4, H6F6,
H8F8) via hydrogen bonding and such molecules may
form a cloud that is heavier than air, therefore less likely to
disperse.
The commenter stated that, by not accounting for exposures from
exceedances, the EPA assumed that such exceedances will be zero and
built in no additional protections in case exceedances do occur. The
commenter claimed that there is no factual basis for assuming that 100
percent of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities will comply with each of
the relevant emissions limits 100 percent of the time. Over the long
term and across the population of regulated facilities, the commenter
noted that it is predictable that a number of exceedances will occur at
facilities. The commenter stated it is unlawful to ignore emissions and
the resulting health risks from those exceedances and argued the
additional risk from exceedances should not be ignored in risk
assessments.
The commenter stated that EPA regularly uses statistical methods
and probability factors to assess health risk due to exceedances and to
set clean air standards, and the EPA has data available to calculate
representative factors to assess the health risk from

[[Page 65505]]

malfunctions or can collect information on major sources' malfunction
and violation histories.\103\ If the EPA needs more refined data
regarding these emissions, the commenter suggested the EPA may request
additional data from sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\103\ See, e.g., EPA, Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO), www.epa.gov/echo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter stated that it is irrelevant that exceedances are a
result of a failure to comply with the law when the EPA is setting CAA
section 112(d)(4) standards, which must be set at a level that protects
health. It does not matter to a person whether the pollution he or she
is breathing is a result of a permitted or unpermitted release; the
commenter argued the EPA cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that
compliance with its standards is not perfect.
Response: The HBEL was determined based on the assessment of acute
affects at the worst-case facility with respect to meteorology and
distance to receptor and is protective of most facilities even if they
had SSM event emissions. Even for the worst-case facility, the SSM
emissions event would need to be coincident with the worst-case
meteorological conditions, which is not likely if SSM events are not
frequent. For chronic risk, SSM emissions are not significant compared
to the HBEL level, and most facilities are well below an HI of one with
emissions at the HBEL level.
The commenter is correct that the EPA did not include malfunctions
and upsets emissions in setting emissions limits. As noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75626), malfunctions ``are, by
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment.'' The preamble
also stated that ``accounting for malfunctions in setting emission
standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad
different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in
the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or
accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various
malfunctions that might occur. For these reasons, the performance of
units that are malfunctioning is not `reasonably' foreseeable.'' It
should also be noted that sources cannot conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction (40 CFR 63.8445(e) and 40 CFR 63.8595(d))
and there are no continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) in
place in the BSCP industry.
The EPA disagrees that it is required to evaluate the ample margin
of safety provided by a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard based on the
level of emissions that could occur during an exceedance of the
standard caused by a malfunction or any other cause. When the EPA
establishes a standard under CAA section 112(d)(4), the EPA evaluates
the ample margin of safety based on what sources will emit when they
are meeting the standard (which applies at all times including periods
of malfunction) and does not include some additional margin of safety
to compensate for periods of time that sources may violate the
standard. This is consistent with how the EPA evaluates standards under
CAA section 112(f)(2) (in that the EPA's evaluation of the ample margin
of safety under that review looks at the emissions allowed under the
standard, not emissions that might occur when the standard is
exceeded).
Regarding the comment that the standard is not health protective
for emissions of HF, the proposed rule determined the HCl equivalent
emissions for HF by the ratio of the RfC value for each pollutant, such
that a 250 tpy emission of HCl is equivalent to 175 tpy emissions of
HF. By performing a risk analysis for each facility/kiln, the EPA
demonstrated that these emissions limits are protective of both chronic
and acute risks.
Regarding the comment that HF exhibits release characteristics that
may make it uniquely hazardous over large areas, the EPA notes that the
commenter did not include data or information supporting their
assertion that plumes of acid gases from BSCP facilities could become
heavier than air. The commenter's example case of the formation of
dense clouds of acid gases is from studies performed on the
vaporization of liquefied gaseous fuels from spills, and the commenter
did not explain how this scenario is relevant to the emission of acid
gases formed in BSCP kilns. In the absence of evidence suggesting that
clouds of dense gases are formed from BSCP facilities, and without a
suggested alternate modeling methodology, the EPA used its preferred
model AERMOD for dispersion for BSCP facilities.
7. Other Issues
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must account for the
variability in emissions measured by compliance testing to measure
whether each plant's emissions meet the HBEL because that testing does
not capture a source's variance in emissions performance over time. The
commenter noted that the EPA already recognizes this fact for stack
tests for technology-based standards. The EPA has stated that it lacks
a high degree of confidence that stack tests capture variation in
emissions over time, and the commenter noted that as a result of this
variance, it can be expected that the compliance tests would not be
accurate. The commenter asserted that if the EPA believes that
measurement variability needs to be corrected for, then it is
irrational and arbitrary to correct for it with one set of standards
(MACT standards) and not another (health-based standards), when they
both rely upon emissions data from stack tests. The commenter noted
that the EPA's proposal to account for variability for MACT standards
but not for compliance with the HBEL would result in weaker and less-
protective standards in both cases.
Response: Variability in emissions would not have a significant
impact on the estimated risks associated with the HBEL. For chronic
exposures and risks, the estimates are based on long-term (annual)
emissions, so short-term emissions variability would not impact the
estimates of chronic risks as long as the annual emissions, on average,
do not exceed the limit. For acute exposures and risks, short-term
emissions variability that causes emissions to exceed the 1-hour HBEL
would increase the potential for acute health effects, but the
likelihood of such effects is low because the emissions variability
would have to occur at the small number of facilities we estimated as
having the highest acute HQs based on the emissions limits, and the
emissions variability would have to coincide with worst-case
meteorological conditions even at those facilities to result in acute
HQs higher than those we estimated based on the HBEL. Most facilities
have acute HQ estimates significantly below one, so short-term
emissions variability would have to be high (approximately 60 percent
higher for the median facility) for the estimated HQs to approach a
value of one.
The EPA also notes that the HBEL was not established using
emissions data from stack tests. Therefore, there was no need to
account for variability in setting the HBEL as was done for the Hg and
non-Hg HAP metals standards. Instead, the standard was established at a
conservative level to ensure that the HQs remain below one for all
facilities. The EPA agrees that there would be variability in the test
results used to demonstrate compliance with the rule, but as already
noted in this response, short-term emissions variability would have to
be high for the estimated HQs to approach a value of one. In addition,

[[Page 65506]]

variability is not considered when comparing compliance testing results
to any other emissions limit, so it would be inconsistent for the EPA
to require owners and operators to adjust their test results before
comparing those results to the HBEL.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should require fence-
line ambient air quality monitoring that measures multiple pollutants
in real-time or near real-time to ensure that people are not being
exposed to ambient pollutant concentrations that exceed the proposed
HBEL. The commenter recommended the EPA also require real-time public
reporting of the monitoring data.
In addition, the commenter suggested that the EPA should require
facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action
plans for agency review and public comment. These requirements would
ensure concerned community members have the ability to review and
recommend improvements to monitoring plans before they are implemented
and would enable the EPA to consider community concerns when deciding
whether to approve a plan.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Because stack
emissions can travel for long distances and are at heights above where
a fence-line monitors would measure, it is inappropriate to use fence-
line monitoring for stack emissions. Fence-line monitoring is performed
for fugitive emissions (see discussion of fence-line monitoring use on
fugitive emissions at 79 FR 36919, Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and
Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule).
In response to the comment that the EPA should require all facilities
to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for
agency review and public comment, the EPA notes that these requirements
are indeed in the rule, as facilities are required to submit monitoring
plans, data and corrective actions for the regulatory agency review.
However, in most cases, these submissions are required to be sent to
the delegated authority, and the follow-up to that review, is left to
the discretion of the delegated authority.

B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP

1. MACT Floors
a. Sources in MACT Floor Pool
One commenter stated that the DC Circuit held that the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP published on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690) violated
the CAA in a number of ways (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C.
Cir. 2007)). The court held that, in setting MACT floors for brick
tunnel kilns, the EPA's exclusion of kilns employing non-DLA controls
from its ranking and identification of the best performing sources was
unlawful because CAA section 112(d)(3) ``requires floors based on the
emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the
lowest emission levels).'' Id. In addition, the court recognized that
factors other than pollution control technology affect performance
(e.g., clay type), and the EPA cannot ignore such factors, even where
the EPA finds that floors based on those factors would be unachievable.
The commenter noted that the EPA is once again excluding best
performing sources from its floor analysis and basing floors on a group
of kilns using the EPA's preferred control technologies, in
contravention of the holding of Sierra Club, which is the decision to
which this rulemaking is intended to be a response. In the proposed
rule, prior to ranking the best performing sources for the BSCP tunnel
kiln floors for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for existing
and new sources, the EPA removed all kilns without a FF-based APCD.
Once removed, those kilns were not included in the ranking of best
performing sources, and hence they were not considered for inclusion
among the best performing 12 percent of sources (for the existing
source floor) or the best controlled similar source (for the new source
floor). The commenter asserted that the agency's reprisal of a floor
approach that the DC Circuit has already rejected repeatedly is not
just unlawful, but amounts to contempt for the court's authority.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
EPA's proposed approach to calculating PM surrogate MACT floors for
kilns was illegal in that it impermissibly excluded certain kilns.
However, at proposal, we asked for comment on this approach and
requested additional data to support this approach, and we did not
receive any such additional data. In addition, some of the test data
for sources with FF-based APCD could not be used in the final
rulemaking because it was discovered that the testing was not carried
out in accordance with the appropriate test method. Therefore, we can
no longer assert that we have emissions data for all BSCP kilns with
FF-based APCD. Thus, the EPA did not use the approach challenged by the
commenter to establish the MACT floors in the final rule.
The EPA has amended the approach to developing PM surrogate MACT
floors for reasons explained in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, so
these comments are now moot. However, the EPA still believes the
approach to identify the best performing sources has merit. When the
EPA has data on every single controlled source in the category, and
these data support that these sources are the best performing, then
basing the MACT floor on the top 12 percent of the total number of
sources is appropriate.
b. Equivalent Limits
Comment: One commenter stated that, in addition to the lb/ton MACT
floors for emissions of Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP
metals), the EPA developed two ``equivalent limits.'' The EPA used its
ranking of the sources based on their ``average'' lb/ton emissions to
identify the best performing source or sources for the floor pool. To
develop the PM and Hg ``equivalent'' limits, the EPA took the best
performing source or sources the EPA had selected and retrieved data on
those sources' emission performance as measured by gr/dscf at 7-percent
O2 for PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. For non-Hg HAP metals,
the EPA proposed to set an additional standard that would limit the
pounds of non-Hg HAP metals emitted per hour. For this additional
limit, the EPA again used the ranking of the sources based on their
``average'' lb/ton emissions and also (without any explanation) no
longer used PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals, but instead set
the limit in terms of total non-Hg HAP metals. The commenter stated
that the EPA acknowledged that the available data on non-Hg HAP metals
is incomplete, so to develop this proposed limit, the EPA simply took
the final pounds of PM per ton of fired product floor limit that it had
derived and applied a set of ``conversion factors'' it invented to put
that standard in terms of pounds of non-Hg HAP metal emissions per
hour. The commenter stated the EPA used completely different
``conversion'' methodologies for the new and existing standards because
the EPA lacks even the limited data it used for the existing source
methodology on new sources.
The commenter stated the ``equivalent'' limits the EPA proposed are
not ``equivalent'' and Congress did not give the EPA the authority to
set multiple limits and allow sources to comply with whichever limit
they choose. The commenter stated the EPA's use of different measures
of performance to identify the top sources on the one hand and to
evaluate their performance on the other is inconsistent, irrational,
and unexplained; the same metric should

[[Page 65507]]

apply for purposes of identifying the best performers and identifying
those sources' actual performance. The commenter also stated the EPA
did not use the best performing 12 percent of existing sources ``for
which the Administrator has emissions information'' for the non-Hg HAP
metals lb/hr limit.
Another commenter supported the EPA's inclusion of multiple formats
for both PM/non-Hg HAP metals and Hg. The commenter stated that the
inclusion of each of these formats, as well as the inclusion of small
and large kiln subcategories, provides needed flexibility to numerous
BSCP facilities, including a large number of small businesses, to find
that standard that best suits their operations while still ensuring
that the CAA requirements are met. The commenter asserted that the
inclusion of three alternate compliance formats is so critical to the
development of this standard that the EPA must re-propose this rule if
it maintains numeric limits but deletes any of these alternative
formats for the final rule.
Response: The EPA appreciates all comments regarding the
alternative limits. The EPA is retaining the alternative limits in the
final rule but is revising the ranking methodology as described in
section IV.A.2 of this preamble. For the final rule, the concentration
floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data, and the lb/hr
floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on
the best performing units for that unit of measurement.
c. Oxygen Correction
Comment: One commenter stated, regarding the concentration
compliance limits, that the use of the equation to correct measured
concentrations to 7-percent O2 could be problematic when
used to correct concentrations measured in stacks with high
O2 content, which is typical of the brick industry. The
commenter stated because the correction term is in the denominator of
the equation for the correction to 7-percent O2, the overall
correction factor increases exponentially as O2
concentrations approach 20.9 percent. As a result, any variances in the
O2 measurement are greatly magnified in the correction
factor for kilns with high stack O2 content. The commenter
suggested that the correction factor should be the average
O2 content represented in the respective floors, 17- percent
O2 (based on a range of O2 stack contents for
BSCP kilns from 13 to 20 percent). The commenter asserted that the
correction to an average of 17-percent will minimize the artificial
inflation of the results for the industry.
Response: The EPA evaluated the O2 content of the run-
by-run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns as described in
section IV.A.1 of this preamble and agrees that correcting
concentration data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7-percent,
as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns' operating
conditions and would not artificially inflate the values. For the final
rule, the EPA has taken the O2 percent analysis into
consideration and revised the equivalent concentration based limits to
be developed from 17-percent O2-corrected concentration
data.
2. Startup and Shutdown
Comment: Numerous commenters supported the use of work practice
standards for periods of startup and shutdown but asserted that the
startup and shutdown procedures listed in the proposed rule cannot be
met by all BSCP kilns and must be modified. Commenters requested that
the final language allow a more basic construct for the work practice
requirements in the final rule and require facilities to develop site-
specific temperatures as part of their permitting process.
Multiple commenters specifically stated that the requirement for an
exhaust temperature of 400[emsp14][deg]F at startup is not workable
because the kiln exhaust temperature in some kilns never reaches
400[emsp14][deg]F. Commenters also noted that kilns must have product
at startup. Therefore, commenters requested that the startup provisions
apply to the introduction, or charging, of new brick or structural clay
product through a kiln and not impact the initial staging of kiln cars
in a kiln before start-up. Commenters suggested revisions to the
proposed language to ``not put any bricks into the kiln'' below
specified temperatures.
Multiple commenters agreed with the language that requires a kiln
to vent to an APCD before the exhaust gas reaches 400[emsp14][deg]F,
because it can vent at any time up to that temperature. Multiple
commenters stated that for a controlled kiln, it is acceptable to
require that no new product is allowed to be introduced to the
controlled kiln until the kiln is vented to an APCD. One commenter
stated that a feasible work practice standard would be for the exhaust
gases to be vented through the APCD during the startup process, with
the reagent feed started on an intermittent basis during this period
and then brought up to full feed rate once the exhaust temperature has
reached the normal operating temperature range.
A few commenters also requested specific revisions to the
production requirements for periods of shutdown. One commenter stated
that during shutdown, a kiln operator would not be pushing any cars in
the kiln after reaching a range of 250 to 300[emsp14][deg]F in the
exhaust stack (depending on the type of kiln and its operating
parameters). The commenter asked that a minimum operating range be
allowed during a shutdown cycle. Another commenter noted that a
limitation for a kiln to cease charging in new product before a kiln
stops venting to an APCD may be a reasonable alternative to temperature
requirements.
Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and additional information
received following proposal as described in section IV.A.4 of this
preamble. As a result, the EPA has revised the work practice standards
for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns to provide
requirements that are more representative of the best performing kilns.
Specifically, instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as
400 [deg]F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the
minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an
APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-
specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln
can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no
product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA is
requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed
to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this
startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust
reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln
temperature profile, whichever is applicable. The final shutdown
standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the
kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the
product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable.

C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP

1. Authority
Comment: Two commenters argued that the EPA has no legal authority
to finalize major source NESHAP for the ceramic tile manufacturing
industry \104\

[[Page 65508]]

because there are currently no existing major sources in that industry
sector that will be subject to the standards. Specifically, they argued
that CAA section 112(d)(1) only provides the EPA authority to regulate
a category or subcategory if it has major sources. Commenters contended
that, here, ceramic tile manufacturing facilities that emit HAP have
all become synthetic area sources and so are subject to the ``area
source'' NESHAP regulation. Thus, they argue, the law does not allow
the EPA to proceed with a major source standard for these
subcategories. Both commenters also stated that the CAA does not give
the EPA the authority to regulate ``just-in-case'' there is a major
source in the future, and the EPA may only regulate categories and
subcategories that currently have major sources in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ There are three distinct sectors within the clay ceramics
manufacturing industry: ceramic floor tile manufacturing, ceramic
wall tile manufacturing, and sanitaryware manufacturing. These
comments address the regulation of HAP emissions from ceramic floor
tile manufacturing and ceramic wall tile manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One commenter stated that the EPA should not devote resources to
finalizing these regulations when those regulations would apply to no
one, and, thus, will have no environmental benefits. The commenter
stated that it is the EPA's duty to responsibly steward the public
resources with which it has been entrusted to use in fulfillment of its
mission, and using these resources to issue regulations that will
regulate no one fails to satisfy that responsibility. Issuing such
regulations is expensive for the regulated community and has the real
potential to create unintended, inaccurate impressions of the industry,
its emissions and its products. It serves no public purpose, and will
impose short and long term costs on the EPA, and long term costs on
delegated states as an unfunded mandate and on the tile manufacturing
industry, 79 FR 75671 (Dec. 18, 2014).
The commenter argued that, because the EPA's promulgation of
standards for the ceramic tile industry is not authorized by the CAA,
finalizing such standards would violate Articles I and II of the U.S.
Constitution because it is an attempt by the EPA to rewrite portions of
the CAA when the power to enact laws is reserved to Congress. The
commenter stated that Congress provided clear instructions to the EPA,
in the unambiguous numerical definition of ``major source,'' as to
which industry categories or subcategories could be regulated by major
source NESHAP standards. The commenter noted that the Supreme Court
very recently stated: ``An agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms
to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.'' Util. Air
Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014). Further, the Court
stated: ``We are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as
EPA embarks on a multiyear voyage of discovery.'' 134 S.Ct. at 2446.
The commenter asserted that the Supreme Court's concerns in the UARG
case are instructive here because, as in the UARG case, the statute
creates unambiguous numeric thresholds defining a major source: the
emission of 10 tpy any one HAP or the emission of 25 tpy in the
aggregate of all HAP, 42 U.S.C. 9612(a)(l). The commenter contended
that the Supreme Court supported the commenter's position when it
stated that ``[i]t is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous
than the precise numerical thresholds . . .'' Id. at 2445.
The commenter argued that the Sierra Club consent decree is
irrelevant to the EPA's statutory authority and its limitations. The
consent decree entered in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.2d 300
(D.D.C. 2012) (hereafter the ``consent decree'') is germane to the
timing of this rulemaking, but it does not, and legally could not,
expand CAA section 112(d) to grant the EPA legal authority to regulate
on the just-in-case basis the EPA has proposed. The withdrawal of the
proposed NESHAP does not preclude the EPA from meeting its statutory
obligations, fulfilling the requirements of the consent decree, and
continuing its existing precedent. The EPA may issue final NESHAP for
those subcategories within this category in which a major source
exists. The ceramic tile manufacturing industry is not among them.
The commenter argued that the proposed NESHAP would, if finalized
as proposed, be arbitrary and capricious because the proposed NESHAP is
based on hypothetical or imaginary manufacturing and air emissions
control strategies, flawed data from an invalidated stack test method,
and on statistically created emissions data. The EPA even proposed in
places not to use actual emissions data.
According to the commenter, the EPA's proposal, if finalized, would
create an economic hurdle so high that no one in the industry would
expand their business to the point of becoming a NESHAP major source.
Further, a substantial number of these entities meet the definition of
a ``small business'' as defined by the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA). The result of this regulation, if finalized,
would be to hand non-market-based economic advantages to foreign
producers to grow their presence in the U.S. market by importing their
competing ceramic tile. Financing of capital projects will be adversely
affected by the costs imposed by the NESHAP, further raising the
economic hurdle. Major source domestic manufacturing capacity will not
be built, and the jobs and tax base that go along with that capacity
will not be created.
Response: Under CAA section 112(c)(1), the EPA first lists all
categories and subcategories of major sources. It is at this first step
that the EPA determines that a given category or subcategory contains
major sources of HAP. Then, the EPA sets standards for those listed
categories and source categories. Both CAA section 112(c)(2) and CAA
section 112(d)(1) make clear that the EPA is to regulate all listed
categories and subcategories. As CAA section 112(c)(2) states: ``For
the categories and subcategories the Administrator lists, the
Administrator shall establish standards . . .'' As CAA section
112(d)(1) states: ``The Administrator shall promulgate regulations
establishing emissions standards for each category and subcategory of
major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for
regulation pursuant to subsection (c) of this section . . .'' In short,
once a category or subcategory of major sources is listed under CAA
section 112(c), it must be regulated. If commenters believe that the
major source ceramic tile subcategories should not be regulated, they
may seek to delete these subcategories from the list, which is a
process that Congress established in CAA section 112(c)(9) and which
the DC Circuit has held is the EPA's sole authority for removing a
listed category or subcategory from the list. New Jersey v. EPA, 517
F.3d 574, 581-583 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
In interpreting the relevant provisions here, the EPA is mindful of
the recent and longstanding instructions from the Supreme Court that
statutory provisions must be read to further rather than undermine
Congress's statutory intent. King v. Burwell, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4248, *29
(2015)(``We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own
stated purposes.'')(citing and quoting New York State Dept. of Social
Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419-420, 93 S. Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d
688 (1973)); E.I. Du Pont De Nemours v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 132
(1977)(``We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has
given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the
purposes for which it has acted.'')(quoting Permian Basin Area Rate
Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 777 (1968)). In this context, it is unreasonable
to read

[[Page 65509]]

CAA section 112(d)(1) as limiting the EPA's authority to set standards
that will be applicable to the highest emitting sources in a category
or subcategory and creating a loophole by which major sources can evade
regulation. Without suggesting that the following is the commenters'
intent, the effect of the commenters' interpretation of CAA section 112
would be that major sources would be able to evade regulation by,
first, becoming synthetic area sources during the rulemaking process
(which, under the commenters' view, would preclude the EPA from
finalizing standards for major sources) and then, after the EPA
withdraws the proposed standards, reconverting to be major sources and
thus not subject to any standard. Consideration of this scenario is
particularly appropriate in the circumstances here, because there are
standards in place for area sources in the ceramic tile subcategories.
It is not reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to create a structure
where an area source (whether a natural area source or a synthetic area
source) has an incentive to increase emissions to become a major
source, and by doing so is no longer subject to emissions limitations.
Further, the issue of whether there are major sources in the
ceramic tile subcategories is not as clear as the commenters presume.
Even if, as the commenters contend, all of the existing major sources
in these subcategories have successfully completed the process of
becoming synthetic area sources, then these sources are not subject to
the requirements imposed on major sources but that does not equate to a
conclusion that they are no longer major sources in any respect. The
EPA's view is that synthetic area sources, though subject to area
source requirements rather than major source requirements, are still
major sources in certain respects. For example, synthetic area sources
are considered to be major sources when the EPA identifies the best
performing major sources as part of a MACT floor calculation under CAA
section 112(d). Further, CAA section 112(a)(1) defines a major source
as ``any 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 per
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more
of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.'' The reference to a
source's ``potential to emit considering controls'' in this definition
allows the interpretation that a source's potential to emit before and
after controls is relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be
considered within the meaning of this definition.
With respect to the commenter's argument that CAA section 112 does
not authorize ``just in case'' regulation, that is both not correct and
off point. First, CAA section 112 clearly provides that the EPA will
set standards for new sources in the listed categories and
subcategories notwithstanding that the EPA can never know whether there
will actually be any new sources. As required under CAA section 112,
the EPA establishes new source standards ``just in case'' (to use
commenter's phrasing) new sources come into existence. Second, as
discussed above, it is reasonable for the EPA to promulgate major
source standards where, as here, there are synthetic area sources that
could revert to major sources just in case that happens.
With respect to the commenters' argument that it is a poor use of
agency resources for the EPA to finalize standards for the ceramic tile
subcategories, the EPA has considered whether it is better to complete
the current rulemaking with respect to the ceramic tile subcategories
(and have them in place in the event that there are new major sources
or a synthetic area source reverts to major source status) or to take
no action now and re-do this rulemaking with respect to these
subcategories in the event that there are major sources in the future.
The EPA's conclusion is that, having gotten this far along in the
rulemaking process, it is a better use of agency resources to finalize
requirements for the ceramic tile subcategories now. Given the options,
finalizing these requirements in this rulemaking requires only a modest
amount of additional resources, and is a much more efficient use of
agency resources than restarting and repeating the rulemaking process
at some point in the future. Even if one considers that there may not
be any major sources that become subject to these requirements and that
such a rulemaking might not ever be done, the EPA's judgment is still
that it is more efficient and a more cost-effective use of agency
resources to finalize these requirements now. Finally, on the issue of
how likely it is that major sources will be built in the future, the
EPA notes that the commenters' own arguments suggest they will be.
Specifically, the commenters stated that having a major source standard
in place will dissuade companies from expanding small facilities into
major sources and will impede financing for new major sources. The
premise of such a comment is that, in the absence of a standard, there
will be such expansions and new major sources.
The document ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Background Information for
Final Rule--Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 addresses additional comments on this topic.
Comment: According to one commenter, the EPA failed to demonstrate
that the benefits of this proposed arbitrary and capricious NESHAP
justify the costs. As stated in Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by President Obama on
January 18, 2011 to reaffirm Executive Order 12866, ``[e]ach agency
must . . . propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs.'' The preamble to
the proposed NESHAP provides cost information (which the commenter
noted elsewhere is erroneous) but did not discuss the benefits. The EPA
only articulated the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. With
respect to costs, the EPA's cost analysis failed to account for costs
to the agency and delegated states to promulgate and implement the
regulations. There are no benefits to justify any of these costs.
Further, ``[i]n deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives,
including the alternative of not regulating.'' The EPA did not assess
the alternative of not regulating--a path that would have exactly the
same result, as there are no major sources to be regulated or not
regulated. Therefore, the commenter stated that the EPA failed to meet
its burden; the proposed NESHAP does not have benefits justifying its
costs, and therefore such a regulation cannot be adopted.
Response: We disagree with the commenter. First, CAA section 112
clearly states that the EPA is obligated to regulate emissions of HAP
from listed source categories. There is no benefits test in the
statutory requirement. The language in Executive Order 12866 does not
supersede a clear legal requirement in the CAA. Second, because there
are no major sources that will be regulated by this rule at the present
time, there will be no implementation costs for the rule. If at a later
date a major source is constructed, or a non-major source becomes
major, then there will be implementation costs, but this rule will
result in emission reduction requirements compared to the emissions
that would be expected to occur in the absence of a rule. Therefore, at
the point

[[Page 65510]]

where this rule actually results in costs, it will also have
corresponding benefits. In the absence of any current major sources
that will be covered by this rule, we simply cannot calculate the
benefits.
2. MACT Floors
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the inclusion of emissions
data from Kohler's South Carolina facility tunnel kiln with the wet
scrubber in the sanitaryware tunnel kiln existing source data pool for
MACT floor determination. The commenter stated that Kohler installed a
new tunnel kiln at the South Carolina facility in 2005 under the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated in 2003, which, according to
the commenter, required the installation of APCD on any new first-fire
tunnel kilns to meet the HF and HCl emission limitations. The APCD that
Kohler installed, a wet scrubber, was written into the facility's air
permit at the time, and so its use at that time was federally
enforceable. The court vacated the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
in 2007, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control revised the facility's air permit in March 2009, removing any
reference to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and any requirement
to operate the scrubber. Kohler then permanently shut down the scrubber
in March 2009, though they continued to operate the tunnel kiln per
permit requirements. Due to cost considerations, the scrubber was
abandoned in place and not demolished/removed.
The commenter noted that, when the EPA issued the information
collection request (ICR) for clay ceramics emissions test data in 2010,
the EPA required that Kohler make operational that wet scrubber for
emissions testing of that tunnel kiln, even though the APCD was not
listed in any permit nor required under any rule and had not been
operated in 17 months. Initially, Kohler agreed to test the kiln as an
existing source per operational requirements in the facility's air
permit (i.e., without the wet scrubber). However, the EPA demanded that
Kohler restart and operate the abandoned scrubber during the kiln's
emissions testing. The commenter noted that Kohler cooperated with the
EPA and tested emissions with the scrubber operating, but the scrubber
was immediately shut down after testing. This scrubber has operated for
a total of 1 week in the past 6 years, and that short period of
operation was only to comply with the EPA's ICR testing demand.
The commenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority require
operation of any permitted source for emissions testing under
rulemaking and ICR protocol. The commenter agreed with the EPA that the
``kiln'' in question is an existing source but disagreed that the non-
operating wet scrubber qualifies as part of an existing source. The
commenter contended that the EPA is arbitrarily penalizing Kohler for
not spending the money to demolish and remove the wet scrubber back in
2009 when it was removed from the facility's air permit. The commenter
asserted that the test data from the wet scrubber are not
representative of any existing source and were not actually achieved in
practice over time. Therefore, using the test data in the MACT floor
analysis is inconsistent with the EPA's expressed intent to determine
MACT floors for existing sources based on the average emissions
actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources with
consideration for variability in emissions over time. The commenter
asserted that all emissions data from the wet scrubber should be
excluded from the existing source data pool for MACT floor analysis,
and the existing source floors should be recalculated for the remaining
existing sources.
Response: Data from the APCD the commenter refers to was considered
in developing both the new and existing MACT floors for sanitaryware
kilns. As stated by the commenter, the APCD was installed to comply
with the previously promulgated Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and
thus was an available data point for collection through the CAA section
114 data collection process for this rulemaking. Because this source
had an operational APCD (even though it was not being operated), we
believe that testing with the APCD operating would be most
representative of the source's best performance as defined in the CAA.
Having collected the emissions data for the source with the APCD
operating, the EPA considered the data consistent with section
112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, under which the Administrator is required to
calculate ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could
reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.'' Since it
is appropriate to include the data in the database available to
determine MACT floors, it is appropriate to use these data in floor
calculations, if it is actually part of the best performing facilities.
We note, however, that the data from this device was only significant
for the existing source dioxin/furan MACT floor, for reasons that are
dependent on each regulated pollutant and discussed as follows.
For both new and existing PM MACT floors, the final limit was
unaffected by use of these data, since the data from the APCD was not
ranked in the top five sources with data.
For both new and existing Hg MACT floors, the data from the APCD
were not ranked because the data were invalidated. The data were
removed from the dataset because of errors in the analytical procedures
surrounding the digestion process as dictated by Method 29. See Section
4.1: Analytical discrepancy of the Test Report ``Kohler Co.,
Spartanburg, SC: Tunnel Kilns and Glaze Spray Booths 08/11-17/2010
Stack Test,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0069.
For dioxin/furan, the data from the APCD are in the top five but is
not the best performing unit based on the dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking.
(Note the units of measure for dioxin/furan ranking have changed from
the proposed ng/dscm at 7-percent O2 to ng/kg.) For the
existing source floor, the result of the calculation of the best
performing five sources is 3.3 ng/kg with the data point, and would
have been 4.0 ng/kg without the data point, which we consider a nominal
difference. The difference does not result in any source having to add
controls. The calculation of the new source floor was not affected by
the data from the APCD because, as stated above, the source was not the
best performing unit, and the new source floor is based on the best
performing unit.
Comment: Three commenters questioned EPA's decision to propose the
dioxin/furan emission limits for ceramic tile manufacturing and
sanitaryware manufacturing in concentration format only. Two commenters
stated that the final dioxin/furan standards should provide the option
to comply with a limitation expressed in units of nanograms per
milligram of tile produced, in addition to or in lieu of the proposed
standard stated in ng/dscm. A mass-based production-related standard
effectively removed the issues around O2 correction created
by use of a standard based only on concentration. Further, the
commenters asserted that it is a more universally appropriate
adjustment for comparison of emissions from large kilns having high air
flow rates to emissions from small kilns with low air volumes. The
third commenter agreed and noted that the proposed

[[Page 65511]]

limits for PM and Hg are expressed as lb/ton fired product. The
commenter asked EPA to explain how the concentration format for the
emission limit is more appropriate for dioxins/furans than a mass
throughput limit. If it is not, the commenter suggested using a mass
throughput format for the dioxin/furan emission limit.
Response: The dioxin/furan limits provided in the final rule for
clay ceramics are in units of ng TEQ/kg of throughput fired or
processed. The EPA agrees that this change in format eliminates the
questions surrounding the O2 correction for concentration
values and is more consistent with the other units of measure provided
in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. To demonstrate compliance
with the limits, the owner or operator will determine the mass TEQ for
each test run (using the toxic equivalency factors in Table 5 to
subpart KKKKK), divide the mass TEQ by the production rate during the
test run, and average the test runs.
The production-based dioxin/furan limits are provided in lieu of
the proposed concentration limits. The compliance flexibility provided
to the BSCP Manufacturing source category (including alternative
compliance options for PM and Hg) was solely related to concerns under
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA),
specifically reducing the regulatory burden of the numerous small
entities in the BSCP category. There are no small businesses expected
to be subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, so the EPA
determined that no additional compliance flexibility was necessary or
warranted for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category.
3. Startup and Shutdown
Comment: One commenter challenged the proposed startup and shutdown
regulations for ceramic tile manufacturing. The commenter asserted that
these standards are based conceptually on the desire to minimize the
time during which ceramic tile manufacturing process units operate in a
temperature range that is ``conducive'' to the formation of new
dioxins/furans (i.e., 200-450 degrees Celsius). The commenter stated
that this concern is moot because there are no new dioxins/furans
formed in the ceramic tile industry sector, based on the emissions data
the EPA proposed to use to set MACT floors for ceramic tile sources and
on the fact that ceramic tile dioxin/furan congener profiles are
different from the profile of the dioxins/furans created as a product
of combustion.
The commenter also challenged the EPA's startup and shutdown
proposal for spray dryers relative to dioxins/furans. The input to the
spray dryer experiences no more than 212[emsp14][deg]F because the
operational purpose of the spray dryer is to cause the excess moisture
suspended or attached to the ball clay matrix to evaporate. If any
spray dryer operating temperature is relevant to the EPA's concern
about temperatures in a spray dryer conducive to dioxin/furan
formation, this is the correct focus.
For ceramic tile floor tile and wall tile roller kilns, the
commenter stated that the proposed temperature requirements for startup
and shutdown reflect good kiln production practices; therefore, the
proposed startup and shutdown standards are unnecessary.
The commenter noted that the standards are based only on data from
the BSCP subcategory, and the proposed temperatures are not appropriate
for all sources. For example, ceramic tile dryers uniformly operate
below 400[emsp14][deg]F, so product could never be introduced to a tile
dryer. The commenter also noted that the startup provisions require
startup of APCD at 400[emsp14][deg]F. However, ceramic tile dryers do
not have APCD because they burn only natural gas, their normal
operating temperature is less than 400[emsp14][deg]F, and their
resulting emissions are minimal. For these reasons, the proposal
effectively constitutes a ban on the operation of tile dryers. If tile
dryers are not an available manufacturing process, ceramic tile
manufacturing as it is currently conducted in the United States would
effectively cease at major sources. The commenter stated that the EPA
lacks the legal authority to implement a de facto shut down of major
sources, or to bar the possibility of the proposal of a major source,
in this industry.
For all the above reasons, the commenter asserted that the EPA must
withdraw the startup and shutdown proposal from any final NESHAP for
this subcategory. The commenter contended that, as proposed, these
standards are arbitrary and capricious.
Response: The CAA requires that NESHAP emissions limitations under
section 112 must apply continuously, including during periods of
startup and shutdown. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during
periods of startup and shutdown; therefore, owners and operators would
be unable to demonstrate compliance with the final numeric MACT
standards during those periods. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work
practice standards for periods of startup or shutdown to ensure that
the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP includes continuous CAA section
112-compliant standards.
The commenter is correct that the specific startup and shutdown
work practice standards proposed were based on information from the
BSCP industry. In absence of any data on specific startup and shutdown
procedures from the clay ceramics CAA section 114 survey, the EPA used
the only data available for a similar industry. The EPA has not
received any additional information from clay ceramics manufacturers on
specific procedures, and in light of that lack of data, the EPA
maintains that the less prescriptive startup and shutdown work
practices being finalized for the BSCP industry are appropriate for the
clay ceramics industry. First, one of the commenter's main points is
that the specific temperatures that were proposed are not appropriate
for all the types of units to which the standards were proposed to
apply, which is consistent with comments received on the BSCP proposal.
Second, the commenter did note that the proposed standards reflect good
kiln production practices for one type of process unit for which the
specific temperature was appropriate. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing
work practice standards that are based on best practices but are less
prescriptive than the proposed standards.
As a final note, the EPA is clarifying in this response that the
startup and shutdown standards are not intended to minimize only
emissions of dioxins/furans. Instead, the standards are intended to
minimize emissions of all pollutants by limiting the amount of
throughput being processed before the unit reaches full production and
limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the
APCD, if applicable. In addition, the proposed startup and shutdown
work practice requirements did not require the use of an APCD, nor do
the final standards. The standards only specify the requirements for
routing exhaust to an APCD if one is present. The EPA has reviewed the
language in the final rule to ensure the standards are clear.

VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts?

Table 8 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions
reductions for existing sources under the final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP and final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The

[[Page 65512]]

costs include the costs of installing APCD as well as the costs for the
testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate compliance.

Table 8--Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
[2011 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Hg
Industry HAP
Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2 metals Hg PM PM2.5 \c\ SO2
\b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP...................................... $64.6 $24.6 344 22.1 2.04 7.08 0.0733 643 309 205
Clay Ceramics............................. 0.267 0.0924 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring.
\b\ Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.
\c\ PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.

The nationwide capital and annual costs of the APCD, testing, and
monitoring needed to comply with the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
are expected to total $64.6 million and $24.6 million, respectively
(2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP emissions reductions achieved under
the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are expected to total 375 tpy. The
methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions
reductions of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the
technical memoranda titled ``Development of Cost and Emission Reduction
Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP'' and ``Monitoring and
Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet
the MACT floor emission limits in the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP, so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are
expected for these sources. However, these facilities are expected to
incur $92,400 annually in monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate
compliance with the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. These
costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled, ``Monitoring
and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic
wall tile. The five facilities that were major sources at the time of
the 2008 and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to
become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known tile
facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP, which means that no costs or emissions reductions
are expected for tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

Table 9 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for
existing sources under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP.

Table 9--Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary air emissions (tpy) Energy
Industry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ impacts Solid waste
PM PM2.5 CO NOX SO2 CO2 (MMBtu/yr) impacts (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP............................................................ 3.40 1.14 5.74 45.6 133 27,900 461,000 5,210
Clay Ceramics................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CO = carbon monoxide; CO2 = carbon dioxide; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year.

The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP include
secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts.
Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the
increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to
meet the promulgated limits (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity needed to operate the APCD, and solid waste impacts consist
of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste
(not reused or recycled).
Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the nationwide secondary
emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, CO, NOX and
SO2 are expected to total 188 tpy, and secondary emissions
of the greenhouse gas pollutant CO2 are expected to total
27,900 tpy, with energy impacts of 461,000 MMBtu/yr and solid waste
impacts of 5,210 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide
secondary impacts of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented
in the technical memorandum, ``Development of Cost and Emission
Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP'' in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all
sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits
in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule, so there are no
secondary impacts expected for these sources. There are no major
sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The five
facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA
surveys have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area
sources. Consequently, none of the known ceramic tile facilities are
expected to be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP, which means that no secondary impacts are
expected for ceramic tile affected sources under the final Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.

C. What are the economic impacts?

For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average national
brick price under the promulgated standards increases by 1.8 percent or
$4.37 per

[[Page 65513]]

1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE) (2011 dollars), while overall
domestic production falls by 1.5 percent or 52 million bricks per year.
Under the promulgated standards, the EPA estimated that two to four
BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for
BSCP Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify
that the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA
initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel and undertook
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, one sanitaryware company owns
major sources and will incur costs (for testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting). That affected company is not a small
business. The compliance costs are less than 0.002 percent of sales for
the affected company. Hence, the economic impact for compliance is
minimal. As noted above, there are no major sources producing ceramic
floor tile or ceramic wall tile. Because no small firms face
significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small
entities. Thus, the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing regulation is not
expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses,
please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and
Structural Clay Products NESHAP,'' which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the benefits?

Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of this rule
will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria
pollutants and their precursors, NOX and SO2.
Sulfur dioxide and NOX are precursors to PM2.5,
and NOX is a precursor to ozone. The criteria pollutant
benefits are considered co-benefits for this rule. For this rule, we
were only able to quantify the health co-benefits associated with
reduced exposure to PM2.5 from changes in emissions directly
emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. We
estimate the monetized co-benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP in
2018 to be $83 million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent
discount rate and $75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-
percent discount rate, not including consideration of energy
disbenefits. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.\105\ A summary of the emission reduction
and monetized co-benefits estimates for this BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is illustrated in Table 10
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ Roman, et al., 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S.,'' Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

Table 10--Summary of the Monetized PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Co-Benefits for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP in 2018
[Millions of 2011 dollars] \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Total monetized co- Total monetized co-
Pollutant reductions benefits (3 percent benefits (7 percent
(tpy) discount) discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly emitted PM[bdi2].[bdi5]........ 308 $83 to $190............... $75 to $170.
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] precursors
SO[bdi2]............................ 72 $2.9 to $6.6.............. $2.6 to $6.0.
NOX \c\............................. -46 -$0.29 to -$0.66.......... -$0.26 to -$0.59.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total monetized benefits........ .............. $84 to $190............... $76 to $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum
across rows. The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing
exposure to PM[bdi2].[bdi5] through reductions of PM[bdi2].[bdi5] precursors, such as SO[bdi2] and directly
emitted PM[bdi2].[bdi5]. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health
effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO[bdi2]), exposure to ozone, ecosystem
effects or visibility impairment.
\b\ PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models
assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing
premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects
estimates by particle type.
\c\ These emission reductions are the net emission reductions from the rule after subtracting out secondary
emission increases due to additional energy requirements to run the control equipment. These estimates do not
include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $3 million depending on the discount rate. See the
RIA for more information about how the EPA monetized these disbenefits.

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized human
health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule.
Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air
quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a ``benefit-per-ton''
approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the
benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert
emissions of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient
PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in
human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then
divided by the emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton
estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann, et al.
(2012),\106\ but they have since been updated to reflect the studies
and population data in the 2012 p.m. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) RIA.\107\ Specifically, we multiplied the benefit-
per-ton estimates from the ``Non-EGU Point other'' category by the
corresponding emission reductions.\108\ All national-average benefit-
per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled
emissions, which may not exactly match the

[[Page 65514]]

emission reductions in this rulemaking and, thus, they may not reflect
the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure,
baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific
location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-
ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support
document, which is available as Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-
0089.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012.
``Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of
emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission
sectors across the U.S.'' Environment International 49 41-151.
\107\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
\108\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical
support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5
precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality
because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow
differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we
assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the
location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels,
which drive population exposure.
It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5
co-benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function
for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based
on the American Cancer Society cohort study \109\ and the extended Six
Cities cohort study.\110\ In the RIA for the final rule, which is
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, we also include
benefits estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman, et al., 2008)
as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-
mortality relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle,
D. Krewski, K. Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortalityand Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate
Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association
287:1132-1141.
\110\ Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. 2012. ``Chronic
Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of
the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.'' Environ Health
Perspect. July; 120(7):965-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature,
reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies,
the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter \111\
documents the association between elevated PM2.5
concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased
premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the
EPA's independent SAB, concluded that the scientific literature
consistently finds that a no-threshold model most adequately portrays
the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in
this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine
particles is without a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5
concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these
studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level
(LML) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data
in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different
concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There
are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which
our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and
the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the
EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration
threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air
quality improvements.
For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not
available due to time and resource limitations and, thus, we are unable
to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this
specific rule's emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. As
a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of
the population exposed at each PM2.5 level using the source
apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates
for this sector. Using the Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 percent of
the population is exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or
above the LML of 5.8 [micro]g/m \3\. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012)
study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8
[micro]g/m\3\. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only
one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline
incidence rates, population and change in air quality. Therefore,
caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule
because these results are not consistent with results from rules that
model changes in air quality.
Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change
in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by
data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and
uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we
believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable
indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a
set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type
of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS RIA \112\ because we lack the necessary air quality input and
monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not
conducted air quality modeling for this rule, and using a benefit-per-
ton approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the
benefits estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\112\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division. December. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291-0087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone
exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment.
Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to
provide monetized estimates for this rule, we include a qualitative
assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these
promulgated standards.
The specific control technologies for this rule are anticipated to
have minor secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 41 tons of
NOX, about 3 tons of PM, less than 6 tons of CO and 121 tons
of SO2 each year. Because we do not currently have methods
to monetize emission changes of CO, only secondary effects of PM,
SO2, and NOX were included in the monetary
evaluation of the actual benefits.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rule, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and
Structural Clay Products NESHAP,'' which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

[[Page 65515]]

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the dockets for this action. The EPA prepared an analysis
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis is contained in ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and
Structural Clay Products NESHAP.'' A copy of the analysis is available
in the docket for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291) and the analysis is briefly summarized here.
The EPA's study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur
total annualized costs of $24.6 million (2011 dollars) under the BSCP
Manufacturing NESHAP, including costs of emission controls, testing and
monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities
that have testing and monitoring. The EPA gathered information on firm
sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP
facilities. The EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing
facilities are at significant risk of closure under the final
standards.
The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the final
rule, as described in section VI of this preamble. These estimates
reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of
morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to
PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource and
methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the
benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits
from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAP each year for the promulgated
standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In
addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2,
this rule will reduce several non-Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e.,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) each
year. The EPA estimates the total monetized co-benefits to be $83
million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and
$75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate
on a yearly average in 2018 for the promulgated standards.
Based on the EPA's examination of costs and benefits of the final
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will exceed the costs.
The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated
with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The remaining firm with
major sources is estimated to incur costs as a result of the Clay
Ceramics Manufacturing final rule and the firm only incurs costs
associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total
annualized costs are only $92,400 (2011 dollars) and the firm's
estimated costs of complying with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
NESHAP are less than 0.002 percent of sales.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in the BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP have been submitted for
approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared
for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number
2509.01. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2510.01. You can
find copies of the ICRs in the dockets for the BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, and they are briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information collected from respondents will be used by EPA
enforcement personnel to: (1) identify new, modified, reconstructed and
existing sources subject to the standards; (2) ensure that MACT is
being properly applied; and (3) ensure that the APCD are being properly
operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and
reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may
not be in compliance with the standards. Based on the reported
information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected
and what records or processes should be inspected at these facilities.
The records that facilities maintain will indicate to the EPA whether
the owners and operators are in compliance with the emission
limitations (including emission limits, operating limits) and work
practice standards. Much of the information the EPA would need to
determine compliance would be recorded and retained onsite at the
facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel
during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to the
EPA.
All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies
set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--Confidentiality of
Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976;
amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28,
1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in
the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and
existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities. A BSCP facility
manufactures brick, including face brick, structural brick, brick
pavers, or other brick and/or structural clay products including clay
pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded,
dimensional clay products. The BSCP facilities typically form, dry and
fire bricks and shapes that are composed primarily of clay and shale.
Kilns are used to fire BSCP. The rule applies to all new and existing
tunnel and periodic kilns at BSCP facilities.
Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in
the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new
and existing sources at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. A clay
ceramics facility manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics facilities
typically form, dry and fire tile or sanitaryware products that are
composed of clay, shale and various additives. Spray dryers are used
during the forming process at tile facilities to process the ceramic
mix into a powder to allow tile pressing. Dryers are used to reduce the
moisture content of the ceramic products prior to firing. Glazes are
applied to some tile and sanitaryware products, with glaze spraying
accounting for all glazing emissions. Kilns are used to fire the
ceramic products and include ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware
tunnel and shuttle kilns. The rule applies to all existing, new and
reconstructed affected sources, which include the kilns, glaze spray
operations, ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers.
(Wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware

[[Page 65516]]

dryers, with no measurable emissions, are not covered.)
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 emissions standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (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 the EPA policies
set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the final rule includes
paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5-year repeat
testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of
performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M
plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment,
compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction.
Collection of data will begin after the effective date of the final
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The
compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after the effective
date. The compliance date for new or reconstructed sources is the
effective date if the source startup date is before the effective date,
or upon startup if the startup date is on or after the effective date.
The schedule for notifications and reports required by the rule is
summarized below.
For BSCP and clay ceramics facilities with existing affected
sources, the initial notification stating that the facility is subject
to the rule must be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the
effective date of the rule. Facilities with new or reconstructed
affected sources for which startup occurs on or after the effective
date must submit the initial notification no later than 120 calendar
days after the source becomes subject to the rule (although we are
projecting no new affected sources in the short term). Facilities may
choose to submit a request to use the routine control device
maintenance alternative standard no later than 120 calendar days prior
to the compliance date. Facilities required to conduct a performance
test must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test
at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to
begin. For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a
performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification of
compliance status no later than 60 calendar days following the
completion of the performance test. For each initial compliance
demonstration that does not involve a performance test, facilities must
submit an initial notification within 30 calendar days of completing
the initial compliance demonstration. Records necessary to determine
compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards
must be compiled on a daily basis, and compliance reports must be
submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual basis. Repeat
performance tests are to be conducted every 5 years to ensure ongoing
compliance.
There are 90 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of
HAP, 84 of which have at least one tunnel kiln. An estimated 21 of
these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by
promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining
69 facilities (63 of which have a tunnel kiln) are expected to be
subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. For these 69 facilities, the
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the BSCP
standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standards) is estimated to be 20,963 labor hours per year, at a
cost of $1,113,105 per year (yr). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
No capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping
or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $682/yr.
The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the
first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated
to be 71 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $3,698/yr. (All
costs are in 2011 dollars.)
There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major
sources of HAP and are expected to be subject to the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing NESHAP. For these three facilities, the annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics
standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standards) is estimated to total 996 labor hours per year at a cost
of $52,674/yr.
As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs associated with
monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be
incurred during this period. The annual operation and maintenance costs
are estimated to be $44/yr.
The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the
first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated
to be 4.6 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $239/yr. (All
costs are in 2011 dollars.)
Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come
into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after
promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests,
inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance reports,
records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the
fourth year following promulgation.
For the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, we estimate an average annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 48,674 labor hours per year, at a
cost of $2,702,447/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate
annualized capital costs of $606,760/yr and annual operating and
maintenance costs of $206,872/yr over this period, for a total
annualized cost of $813,632/yr. The average annual burden for the
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,891 labor
hours per year, at a total labor cost of $204,550/yr. (All costs are in
2011 dollars.)
For the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, we estimate an average
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 2,323 labor hours per
year, at a cost of $122,786/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate
annualized capital costs of $72,050/yr and annual operating and
maintenance costs of $27,069/yr over this period, for a total
annualized cost of $99,119/yr. The average annual burden for the
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 labor
hours per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs
are in 2011 dollars.)
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an
IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities
along with regulatory alternatives that could

[[Page 65517]]

minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review in the
docket and is summarized here. We convened a SBAR Panel to obtain
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of
the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included at 79 FR 75669-75671.
As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the
proposed rule. The complete FRFA is included in Section 5 of
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products
NESHAP,'' available for review in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0291), and is summarized here.
1. Need for the Rule
The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission
standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of
HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are
applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the
maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator's judgment,
the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the
BSCP source category are being finalized.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions
standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the
performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must
be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five
sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section
112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least
as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must
consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When
considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only
the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into
account costs, energy and non-air environmental impacts when doing so.
This rule is being proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d).
3. Significant Issues Raised
The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests
for comment that were included based on SBAR Panel recommendations. See
section V of this preamble and ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule--Summary of Public
Comments and Responses'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for more
detailed comment summaries and responses.
Work practices for dioxin/furan: One commenter stated that
work practices for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are
not lawful under the CAA, and, even if they were, the work practices
proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissions. Other
commenters supported the proposed work practices for dioxin/furan.
Response: The EPA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as
proposed. The EPA's response to the legal arguments made against work
practice standards is presented in ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule--Summary of Public
Comments and Responses'' found in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0291).
Work practices for Hg and other metals: Several commenters
responded to the EPA's request for comment on work practices for Hg and
non-Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should
finalize work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support
for their assertion that the numeric limits are technically and
economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the
emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justified by the
high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards.
Response: Emissions of Hg and non-Hg HAP metals were detected using
standard EPA test methods; therefore, the Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data
sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under
CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and
non-Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practices. The
final numeric standards have been revised since the proposal to account
for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw
materials), removal of test data found not to meet the requirements of
the applicable data, and changes in the EPA's approach to selecting the
MACT floor pools (see section V.B.1 of this preamble for additional
details).
Health-based standard for acid gases: Several commenters
asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 112(d)(4) health-
based standards for acid gases for BSCP facilities. Other commenters
supported the EPA's decision to propose health-based standards for acid
gases but noted that the EPA's approach was overly conservative and
requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits based on site
characteristics.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the health-based standards for acid
gases as proposed. The EPA's response to the legal arguments made
against health-based standards is presented in section V.A of this
preamble. The EPA is not changing the HBEL from proposal, as the
proposed HBEL provides low potential for both chronic and acute health
effects.
Size subcategories for MACT floors: Several commenters
requested that the EPA subcategorize by size for the non-Hg HAP metal/
PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg.
Response: As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on
the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for small and
large kilns for non-Hg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The EPA is also
finalizing limits in three different formats for both pollutants to
provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns
with a low metals content in the PM emissions.
Sawdust dryers: Several commenters requested that the EPA
finalize a subcategory of sawdust-fired kilns venting to sawdust
dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation
of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns and stated that there are
only two operating that would be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP.
Response: Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a
sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data
to demonstrate that emissions from sawdust dryers are different than
other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a subcategory
of sawdust-fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers.
Periods of startup and shutdown: One commenter stated that
work practices for periods of startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns
are not lawful under the CAA. Other commenters supported the proposal
to provide work practices for periods of

[[Page 65518]]

startup and shutdown, but suggested improvements to the standards to
make them feasible for all tunnel kilns.
Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work
practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that reflect
best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see
section V.B.2 of this preamble for additional information).
MACT floor pool: Several commenters supported the EPA's
proposal to calculate MACT floor standards for PM based on the top 12
percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources
with a FF-based APCD). One commenter asserted that the EPA's proposal
is unlawful and the EPA must consider other factors than the APCD type
when setting MACT standards.
Response: The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for
PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and found that some of the test
data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data
were removed, the EPA could no longer confirm that the data available
to the agency represented all the best-performing sources. Therefore,
the final PM and non-Hg HAP metals are based on the top 12 percent of
sources for which we had test data, regardless of APCD type (see
section V.B.1 of this preamble for additional details).
4. SBA Comments
The SBA's Office of Advocacy supported the EPA's proposals to set
work practice standards and health-based emission standards in all
instances allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement.
The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA's responses are
summarized below:
Hg standards: The EPA should pursue subcategorization by
input (raw material) type and delay promulgation of a Hg standard to
gather more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined
with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous
compliance.
Response: The EPA maintains that a delay in promulgation of an Hg
standard is not appropriate for two reasons. First, under CAA section
112(e), the EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source
categories by 2000. The EPA's 2003 BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP was
vacated, and that vacatur re-created the EPA's obligation to set
standards for the BSCP source category. Sierra Club v. EPA, 850
F.Supp.2d 300, 303-304 (D.D.C. 2012). Under the consent decree in that
case, as amended in August 2014, the EPA was obligated to sign a notice
of final rulemaking to set standards for the BSCP source category by
September 24, 2015.
Second, the EPA notes that following proposal, it received
additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from
facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the
EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the
class or type of raw materials. However, the EPA has concluded that it
has sufficient information to allow it to finalize Hg standards that
account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. Thus, the
EPA's conclusion is that there is no basis to delay promulgation of the
Hg standards in order to gather more information.
Economic analysis: The economic impact of the proposed
rule on small entities is significantly underestimated. Specifically,
the EPA should not annualize costs at 7 percent over 20 years because
that does not reflect the financing options available to small
entities, the EPA underestimated the cost for a facility to become a
synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to
comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency
has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry.
Response: The EPA standard engineering cost practice is to
annualize over the expected life of the control equipment at 7 percent.
The EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays
for an APCD because each firm has a different set of potential options
for financing including debt financing, equity financing, and financing
through retained earnings. The EPA acknowledges that some firms may not
be able to borrow the money and some may close. The EPA's closure
analysis is quite uncertain, but we do not have the detailed firm-
specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agrees
that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were
underestimated, and the final rule impacts include testing costs for
all facilities, as potential synthetic area sources would have to
demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to apply for synthetic
area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available
to the agency to estimate the impact of the standards on all entities.
The final Hg standards incorporate variability in the Hg content of raw
materials, which is expected to ease the burdens on some small
entities.
5. Affected Small Entities
Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies
are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated
compliance costs to company sales (cost-to-sales ratio) to measure the
magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final
standards, the EPA estimated that two to three small BSCP manufacturing
facilities (two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities overall) are at
significant risk of closure.
6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
Respondents would be required to provide one-time and periodic
notifications, including initial notification, notification of
performance tests, and notification of compliance status. Respondents
would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting
compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they
would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the
EPA's ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation
supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as
well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources
and APCD at the facility.
7. Significant Alternatives
The EPA considered three major options for this final rule; see
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products
NESHAP,'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291), for more information
about the alternatives. Finalizing the proposed changes without
revision is expected to have similar cost and emission reduction
impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number
of closures (one to two small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than
two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons
outlined in this preamble and ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule--Summary of Public
Comments and Responses'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, the EPA
determined that the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be
finalized as proposed. The other alternative considered included the
same standards for acid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only
provided one set of limits PM/non-Hg HAP metals (i.e., did not provide
separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This
alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than
the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher
number of closures (five to 10

[[Page 65519]]

small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than two to three small BSCP
manufacturing facilities). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is
necessary to exercise its discretion to subcategorize by kiln size to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.
In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide
to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be
available on the World Wide Web approximately 1 year after promulgation
of the rule, at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on owners and
operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and not
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the
memoranda ``Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission
Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing Source Category,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-
0132 and ``Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission
Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source
Category,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0213.

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

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly
affect productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.

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

This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use the following four voluntary consensus standards as acceptable
alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule.
The EPA has decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen
or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is
acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B and is available from
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at https://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or
by telephone at (800) 843-2763.
The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,''
for its measurement of the concentration of gaseous HCl and HF and
other gaseous chlorides and fluorides. This standard is acceptable as
an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
In addition, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008), ``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound
and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' for its determination of elemental, oxidized,
particle-bound, and total Hg emissions. This standard is acceptable as
an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).
Finally, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved
2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
Spectroscopy,'' for its use of an extractive sampling system to direct
stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the
identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. This standard
is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following
conditions: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
(2) in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent
recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R
must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to
130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target
compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the
test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or
analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value
for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that
compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured
Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R.
The standards ASTM D6735-01, ASTM D6784-02, and ASTM D6348-03 are
available from the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) at
https://www.astm.org; by mail at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or by telephone at (610) 832-
9585.
While the EPA identified ASTM D7520-13, ``Standard Test Method for
Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere''
as being potentially applicable as an alternative to Method 9 for
measuring opacity from BSCP tunnel kilns, the agency decided not to use
it. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be impractical.
The five provisions for the use of this standard appear to be based on
the assumption that the optical camera will be used on a daily basis.
However, this rulemaking does not include daily Method 9 tests. The
rule requirements are such that a Method 9 observation would need to be
made unexpectedly and only when the Method 22 test failed. It would be
unreasonable to expect that a source would be making daily calibrations
of the camera when its use would be so infrequent. Given that, it is
unlikely that the camera could be made ready in the time specified for
the Method 9

[[Page 65520]]

readings. Therefore, this standard is not usable based on the current
requirements in this rulemaking.

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

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in
the December 2014 proposal (79 FR 75672), the EPA determined that this
final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations,
because it increases the level of environmental protection for all
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population. Additionally, the
agency has conducted a proximity analysis for this rulemaking, which is
located in the docket. (See ``EJ Screening Report for Brick and
Structural Clay,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0102, and ``EJ
Screening Report for Clay Ceramics,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0290-0241.)

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated: September 24, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(75);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(86) through (98) as paragraphs (h)(87)
through (99), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(86);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(88); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (m)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a),
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d),
table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e),
63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a),
63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart
JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table
1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(75) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1
through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for tables 4 and 5
to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5
to subpart UUUUU, and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
(86) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to
subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * *
(88) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),
(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.11646(a),
63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD,
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, table
4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to
subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e),
and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

0
3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows:

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet?
63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and
work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating
limits?
63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

[[Page 65521]]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8490 What records must I keep?
63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Compliance Dates
Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Notifications
Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay
products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations.

Sec. 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP
manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major
source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures
brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and
brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/
or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay
products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale,
form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire
the bricks or shapes. A plant site that manufactures refractory
products, as defined in Sec. 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in
Sec. 63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

Sec. 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed
affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.
(b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected sources are
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are an
affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel kiln with
a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/
hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product will be called a large
tunnel kiln, and a tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07
Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln.
(2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source.
(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart
are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on
previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
(2) Raw material processing and handling.
(3) Dryers.
(4) Sources covered by subparts KKKKK and SSSSS of this part.
(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the
affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.

Sec. 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) You must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance
dates in Table 7 to this subpart.
(b) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8480
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8480 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 and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.

Sec. 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations
and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this
subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and
collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and
demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in
Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and
APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement
manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected periodic
kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans for
affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in
Table 3 to this subpart.
(d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel kilns
during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the
requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

[[Page 65522]]

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except
during periods that you are approved for and in compliance with the
alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and except during periods
of start-up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the
applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts
to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified
for your affected source in Sec. 63.8395 and the date upon which
continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control
equipment.
(c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a
written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.8425.
(d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the
emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform
routine maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass
the kiln control device and continue operating the kiln subject to the
alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the
Administrator and provided you satisfy the conditions listed in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance
alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar
days before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.8395. Your
request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the
control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance
activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of
the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be
accomplished during kiln shutdowns, provide information stating whether
the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer
emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is
performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this
section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation
required by the Administrator.
(2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4
percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln.
(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance
alternative standard, if approved by the Administrator, must be
incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source's
title V permit.
(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln
is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the
applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart.
(5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is
operating and the control device is offline.
(e) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in
this subpart at all times.
(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and
revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in
paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for
inspection by the delegated authority upon request.
(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be
monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.8405. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during
performance tests.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term
maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection
schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD).
(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures
and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).
(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner
or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance
evaluation plan in Sec. 63.8(d)(2) is revised, the owner or operator
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8485 and
63.8490.
(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations,

[[Page 65523]]

including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning
the operating parameters to the allowable limits.
(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began
and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
(13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take the kiln
control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in
Sec. 63.8420(d), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln during
periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device when the kiln
is operating and the control device is offline.
(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of
routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln is
operating and the control device is offline.
(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new
performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter
value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate that
compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised
operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance
tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is
specified for your source in Sec. 63.8395 and according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).

Sec. 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance
test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least
every 5 years following the initial performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the
parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.

Sec. 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and
calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4
to this subpart.
(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and
the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section to determine
compliance with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the production-based particulate
matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production
for each test run using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.014

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant
per megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams
(tons) of fired product per hour.

(2) To determine compliance with the health-based standard for acid
gas HAP for BSCP manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart,
you must:
(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and
Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.015

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms
(pounds) per hour
EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds)
per hour
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms
per cubic meter

[[Page 65524]]

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per
cubic meter
RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15
micrograms per cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the
HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using
Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.016

Where:

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns
at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms
(pounds) per hour
n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.
(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln, calculate
the maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and
Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.017

Where:

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for
kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of
fired product per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production
for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton)
of fired product
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per
cubic meter
RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15
micrograms per cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the
maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the
facility using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.018

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions
for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for
kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

(iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and the
total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, determine the maximum process rate for the
tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total facility
maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-
equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would become your operating
limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.019

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams
(tons) per hour
HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26
kilograms (57 pounds) per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production
for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton)
of fired product
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per
cubic meter
RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15
micrograms per cubic meter

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and the
total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, determine the combination of maximum process
rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum
process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and
must be included in your OM&M plan.

[[Page 65525]]

(2) [Reserved]
(h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that
is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs
(h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of
intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes.
(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used.
(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.
(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be
determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table
4 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to
your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your
OM&M plan.
(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you
must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at
least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour)
for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-
control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance
covered by the routine control device maintenance alternative standard
as specified in Sec. 63.8420(d)).
(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block averages of all recorded
readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of
the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded
readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction,
out-of-control periods, or periods of routine control device
maintenance covered by the routine control device maintenance
alternative standard as specified in Sec. 63.8420(d)).
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but
not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the
monitoring equipment.
(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a
representative flowrate.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the liquid flowrate.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (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 measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified
maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install
a new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration at one point daily.
(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015,
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems
must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner
consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the EPA-
454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or

[[Page 65526]]

decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such
adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as
defined in section 5.2 of the ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). Record each
adjustment.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement
device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5)
and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative feed rate measurement.
(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone adsorber
(DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and
(5) of this section and must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed
system replaces limestone at least as frequently as the schedule set
during the performance test.
(h) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (h)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1
percent of the temperature being measured.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(i) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must
meet the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8445(h) and 63.8(f).

Sec. 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to
Table 5 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8445 and Table 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 Sec. 63.8480(c).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control
device maintenance as specified in Sec. 63.8420(d) when the affected
source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data
averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other
periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do
not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a
deviation from the monitoring requirements.

Sec. 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and
3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods
specified in Table 6 to this subpart.
(b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that
is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established
as required in Sec. 63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified
in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as
described in Sec. Sec. 63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f).
(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to
you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in
this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.8485(c)(9).
(d) [Reserved]
(e)(1) VE testing. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with
the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions
(VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry
lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter
(DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln
stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v)
of this section.
(i) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to
the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. You must
conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under
normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least
15 minutes.
(ii) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using
Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must promptly conduct an
opacity test, according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4. If opacity greater than 10 percent is observed, you
must initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M
plan.
(iii) You may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from
daily to weekly for a kiln stack if one of the conditions in paragraph
(e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met.
(A) No VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for
any kiln stack; or
(B) No opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of
the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack.
(iv) If VE are observed during any weekly test and opacity greater
than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent Method 9 test, you must
promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your
OM&M plan, resume testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, on a daily basis, as described in paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this section, and maintain that schedule until one of the
conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met,
at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing
to a weekly basis.
(v) If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test
conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, you must
report these deviations by following the requirements in Sec. 63.8485.
(2) Alternative to VE testing. In lieu of meeting the requirements
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, you may conduct a PM test at
least once every year following the initial performance test, according
to the procedures of

[[Page 65527]]

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, and the provisions of Sec.
63.8445(e) and (f)(1).

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

Sec. 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 9 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.8395 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. The first
reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months.
For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first
semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December
31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June
30 and December 31, respectively.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate, and complete.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the
control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control
device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and
restarted.
(ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number
of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline.
(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance
request developed as specified in Sec. 63.8420(d). If the control
device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device
maintenance request, then you must report the information in paragraphs
(c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the
control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period
and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
(B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control
device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance
covered under the routine control device maintenance alternative
standard during the current semiannual compliance period and during the
previous semiannual compliance period.
(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs
(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of
kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for
routine maintenance using Equation 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.020

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device
was offline for routine control device maintenance
DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous
semiannual compliance period
DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance alternative standard for the current
semiannual compliance period
KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance
period
KUc = Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance
period

(5) A report of the most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply
with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance
report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations during the reporting period.
(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was
out-of-control during the reporting period.

[[Page 65528]]

(8) The first compliance report must contain the startup push rate
for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and
the temperature profile for each kiln without an APCD.
(9) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report
such events in the compliance report by including the information in
paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
(ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(9),
and paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.
(4) Whether each deviation occurred during routine control device
maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance
alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each
deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(5) A description of any corrective action taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that were 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 source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A brief description of the process units.
(9) A brief description of the CMS.
(10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control
equipment since the last reporting period.
(e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 9 to this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting
authority.
(f) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
performance test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart,
you must submit the results of the performance test following the
procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this
section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/) at the time of the test,
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13.

Sec. 63.8490 What records must I keep?

[[Page 65529]]

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a
fired-product basis.
(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedures.
(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with
records documenting conformance.
(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i)
through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your
periodic kiln.
(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each
product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic kilns use the
same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each
kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets.
(ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product
fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol
reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and
temperature cycle was fired.
(iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of
product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of whether the
tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln.
(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate
compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work
practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(9) Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan
work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
(10) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following
information:
(i) The date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown
period, recording the periods when the affected source was subject to
the standard applicable to startup and shutdown.
(ii) For periods of startup, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust
temperature prior to the time the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD
inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln temperature
profile is attained (for a kiln with no APCD).
(iii) For periods of shutdown, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust
temperature after the time the kiln exhaust falls below the minimum
APCD inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln
temperature profile is no longer maintained (for a kiln with no APCD).
(11) All site-specific parameters, temperature profiles, and
procedures required to be established or developed according to the
applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

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

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

Sec. 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your state, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your
state, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred
to the state, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in
Sec. 63.8395, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec.
63.8405.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
(6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under
Sec. 63.8420(d).

Sec. 63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

[[Page 65530]]

continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into
a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically
include recirculation of some of the sorbent.
Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a
limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed
tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a peeling drum
that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for
reuse.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas
stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.
Initial startup means:
(1) For a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA,
the time at which the temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 [deg]C
(500 [deg]F) and the kiln contains product; or
(2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF,
DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln first reaches
a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design
capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing BSCP,
whichever is earlier.
Fired product means brick or structural clay products that have
gone through the firing process via kilns.
Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a
tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD),
rather than to a sawdust dryer.
Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or
reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/
hr (10 tph) of fired product.
Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that
kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long-term
integrity of the APCD.
Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart,
emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions,
as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) or Method 29 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and as a surrogate for non-mercury metal
HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to,
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
manganese, nickel, and selenium.
Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or
reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of
fired product.
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and
starting the production process.
Startup push rate means the kiln push rate required to bring the
kiln to the proper operating temperature during startup.
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP.
Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream
that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process
stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it
is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere.
Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in
Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by
the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the
void space in the brick, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking
pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity,
the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following
modifications.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include
caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may
use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between
exhaust gases and the sorbent.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following Or you must comply with the
For each . . . emission limits . . . following . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not Not applicable.
facility, including all process streams. exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl
equivalent, under the health-based
standard, as determined using
Equations 2 and 3.
2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design a. PM emissions must not exceed i. PM emissions must not exceed
capacity >=10 tons per hour (tph) of 0.018 kg/Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at
fired product), including all process fired product. 17% O2; or
streams. ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
(0.0057 lb/hr).
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.1 i. Hg emissions must not exceed
E-05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) 7.7 micrograms per dry standard
(4.1 E-05 pound per ton (lb/ton)) cubic meter ([micro]g/dscm) at
of fired product. 17% O2; or
ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
2.5 E-04 kg/hr (5.5 E-04 lb/
hr).
3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design a. PM emissions must not exceed i. PM emissions must not exceed
capacity <10 tph of fired product), 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired 4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at
including all process streams. product. 17% O2; or
ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr
(0.11 lb/hr).
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 i. Hg emissions must not exceed
E-04 kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/ton) of 91 [mu]g/dscm at 17% O2; or
fired product.
ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
8.5 E-04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr).

[[Page 65531]]

4. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed i. PM emissions must not exceed
(design capacity >=10 tph of fired 0.0089 kg/Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of 3.2 mg/dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at
product), including all process streams. fired product.. 17% O2; or
ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
(0.0057 lb/hr) of fired
product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 i. Hg emissions must not exceed
E-05 kg/Mg (2.8 E-05 lb/ton) of 6.2 [micro]g/dscm at 17% O2.
fired product.
ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
1.6 E-04 kg/hr (3.4 E-04 lb/
hr).
5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed i. PM emissions must not exceed
(design capacity <10 tph of fired 0.015 kg/Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of 4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at
product), including all process streams. fired product. 17% O2; or
ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr
(0.11 lb/hr) of fired product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 i. Hg emissions must not exceed
E-04 kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/ton) of 91 [micro]g/dscm at 17% O2.
fired product.
ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
8.5 E-04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA a. Maintain the average pressure
drop across the DLA for each 3-hour
block period at or above the
average pressure drop established
during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance
test; or, if you are monitoring the
bypass stack damper position,
initiate corrective action within 1
hour after the bypass damper is
opened allowing the kiln exhaust
gas to bypass the DLA and complete
corrective action in accordance
with your OM&M plan; and
b. Maintain an adequate amount of
limestone in the limestone hopper,
storage bin (located at the top of
the DLA), and DLA at all times;
maintain the limestone feeder
setting (on a per ton of fired
product basis) at or above the
level established during the HF/HCl/
Cl2 performance test in which
compliance was demonstrated; and
c. Use the same grade of limestone
from the same source as was used
during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance
test in which compliance was
demonstrated; maintain records of
the source and grade of limestone;
and
d. Maintain no VE from the DLA
stack.
2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a a. If you use a bag leak detection
DIFF or DLS/FF. system, initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete
corrective actions in accordance
with your OM&M plan; operate and
maintain the fabric filter such
that the alarm is not engaged for
more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period; or maintain no VE
from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and
b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the
feed hopper or silo and to the APCD
at all times for continuous
injection systems; maintain the
feeder setting (on a per ton of
fired product basis) at or above
the level established during the HF/
HCl/Cl2 performance test for
continuous injection systems in
which compliance was demonstrated.
3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average
scrubber liquid pH established
during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance
test in which compliance was
demonstrated; and
b. Maintain the average scrubber
liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
block period at or above the
highest average scrubber liquid
flow rate established during the HF/
HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals
performance tests in which
compliance was demonstrated.
4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an Maintain the average carbon flow
ACI system. rate for each 3-hour block period
at or above the average carbon flow
rate established during the Hg
performance test in which
compliance was demonstrated.
5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on a. Maintain no VE from the stack.
control. b. Maintain the kiln process rate at
or below the kiln process rate
determined according to Sec.
63.8445(g)(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each work practice
standard in the following table that applies to you:

[[Page 65532]]

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For each . . . You must . . . following
requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Develop and use a
reconstructed periodic kiln. emissions. designed firing
time and
temperature cycle
for each periodic
kiln. You must
either program the
time and
temperature cycle
into your kiln or
track each step on
a log sheet; and
ii. Label each
periodic kiln with
the maximum load
(in tons) of
product that can be
fired in the kiln
during a single
firing cycle; and
iii. For each firing
load, document the
total tonnage of
product placed in
the kiln to ensure
that it is not
greater than the
maximum load
identified in item
1b; and
iv. Develop and
follow maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify
the frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices,
controls that
regulate air-to-
fuel ratios, and
controls that
regulate firing
cycles; and
v. Develop and
maintain records
for each periodic
kiln, as specified
in Sec. 63.8490.
2. Existing, new or a. Minimize dioxin/ i. Maintain and
reconstructed tunnel kiln. furan emissions. inspect the burners
and associated
combustion controls
(as applicable);
and
ii. Tune the
specific burner
type to optimize
combustion.
3. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Establish the
reconstructed tunnel kiln emissions. startup push rate
during periods of startup. for each kiln, the
minimum APCD inlet
temperature for
each APCD, and
temperature profile
for each kiln
without an APCD and
include them in
your first
compliance report,
as specified in
Sec.
63.8485(c)(8); and
ii. After initial
charging of the
kiln with loaded
kiln cars, remain
at or below the
startup push rate
for the kiln until
the kiln exhaust
reaches the minimum
APCD inlet
temperature for a
kiln with an APCD
or until the kiln
temperature profile
is attained for a
kiln with no APCD;
and
iii. If your kiln
has an APCD, begin
venting the exhaust
from the kiln
through the APCD by
the time the kiln
exhaust temperature
reaches the minimum
APCD inlet
temperature.
4. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Do not push
reconstructed tunnel kiln emissions. loaded kiln cars
during periods of shutdown. into the kiln once
the kiln exhaust
temperature falls
below the minimum
APCD inlet
temperature if the
kiln is controlled
by an APCD or when
the kiln
temperature profile
is no longer
maintained for an
uncontrolled kiln;
and
ii. If your kiln has
an APCD, continue
to vent the exhaust
from the kiln
through the APCD
until the kiln
exhaust temperature
falls below the
minimum inlet
temperature for the
APCD.
5. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Develop and use a
reconstructed tunnel kiln emissions.. temperature profile
during periods of routine for each kiln; and
control device maintenance. ii. Develop and
follow maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify
the frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices
and controls that
regulate air-to-
fuel ratios; and
iii. Develop and
maintain records
for each kiln, as
specified in Sec.
63.8490(a)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8445, you must conduct each performance test
in the following table that applies to you:

[[Page 65533]]

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln..................... a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
the number of A-1. the APCD and prior to any
traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
for all affected sources.
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A-1. 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
volumetric flow rate. 60, appendix A-1, or
Method 2G of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-1.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use Method 3A or 3B
molecular weight part 60, appendix A-2. of 40 CFR part 60,
analysis. appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2. ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual
procedures (but not the
instrumental procedures)
in Methods 3A and 3B.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR
content of the stack part 60, appendix A-3.
gas.
e. Measure HF, HCl and i. Method 26A of 40 You may use Method 26 of 40
Cl2 emissions. CFR part 60, appendix CFR part 60, appendix A-8,
A-8; or. as an alternative to using
Method 26A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-8, when no
acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
dissolved in water
droplets emitted by
sources controlled by a
WS) is present. ASTM D6735-
01 (Reapproved 2009)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Methods 26
and 26A.
ii. Method 320 of When using Method 320 of
appendix A of this appendix A of this part,
part. you must follow the
analyte spiking procedures
of section 13 of Method
320 of appendix A of this
part, unless you can
demonstrate that the
complete spiking procedure
has been conducted at a
similar source. ASTM D6348-
03 (Reapproved 2010)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Method 320
if the test plan
preparation and
implementation in Annexes
A1-A8 are mandatory and
the %R in Annex A5 is
determined for each target
analyte.
f. Measure PM i. For PM only: Method
emissions or non-Hg 5 of 40 CFR part 60,
HAP metals. appendix A-3; or.
ii. For PM or non-Hg
HAP metals: Method 29
of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8.
g. Measure Hg Method 29 of 40 CFR ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
emissions. part 60, appendix A-8. 2008) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Method 29
(portion for Hg only).
2. Tunnel kiln with no add-on Establish the HCl-equivalent limit Using the procedures in
control. operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this Sec. 63.8445(g)(1), you
for kiln process rate subpart and emissions must determine the maximum
if the total facility and production data process rate(s) for your
maximum potential HCl- from the HF/HCl/Cl2 kiln(s) that would ensure
equivalent emissions performance test. total facility maximum
are greater than the potential HCl-equivalent
HCl-equivalent limit emissions remain at or
in Table 1 to this below the HCl-equivalent
subpart. limit in Table 1 to this
subpart. The maximum
process rate(s) would
become your site-specific
process rate operating
limit(s).
3. Tunnel kiln that is complying Determine the Production data You must measure and record
with PM and/or Hg production-based production rate collected during the the production rate, on a
emission limits. during each PM/Hg PM/Hg performance fired-product basis, of
test run in order to tests (e.g., no. of the affected source for
determine compliance pushes per hour, no. each of the three test
with PM and/or Hg of bricks per kiln runs.
production-based car, weight of a
emission limits. typical fired brick).
4. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
operating limit for drop measurement measure the pressure drop
the average pressure device during the HF/ across the DLA, determine
drop across the DLA. HCl/Cl2 performance and record the block
test. average pressure drop
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
pressure drop measurements
for the three test runs.
The average of the three
test runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
pressure drop operating
limit.

[[Page 65534]]

b. Establish the Data from the You must ensure that you
operating limit for limestone feeder maintain an adequate
the limestone feeder during the HF/HCl/Cl2 amount of limestone in the
setting. performance test. limestone hopper, storage
bin (located at the top of
the DLA), and DLA at all
times during the
performance test. You must
establish your limestone
feeder setting, on a per
ton of fired product
basis, one week prior to
the performance test and
maintain the feeder
setting for the one-week
period that precedes the
performance test and
during the performance
test.
c. Document the source Records of limestone
and grade of purchase.
limestone used.
5. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF Establish the Data from the lime For continuous lime
or DLS/FF. operating limit for feeder during the HF/ injection systems, you
the lime feeder HCl/Cl2 performance must ensure that lime in
setting. test. the feed hopper or silo
and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times
during the performance
test and record the feeder
setting, on a per ton of
fired product basis, for
the three test runs. If
the feed rate setting
varies during the three
test runs, determine and
record the average feed
rate from the three test
runs. The average of the
three test runs
establishes your minimum
site-specific feed rate
operating limit.
6. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS.. a. Establish the Data from the pH You must continuously
operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the liquid pH, determine and
liquid pH. performance HF/HCl/ record the block average
Cl2 performance test. pH values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pH measurements
for the three test runs.
The average of the three
test runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
liquid pH operating limit.
b. Establish the Data from the flow You must continuously
operating limit for rate measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the HF/ liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg determine and record the
HAP metals block average flow rate
performance tests. values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
flow rate measurements for
the three test runs. The
average of the three test
runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
liquid flow rate operating
level. If different
average wet scrubber
liquid flow rate values
are measured during the HF/
HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP
metals tests, the highest
of the average values
become your site-specific
operating limit.
7. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI Establish the Data from the carbon You must measure the carbon
system. operating limit for flow rate measurement flow rate during each test
the average carbon conducted during the run, determine and record
flow rate. Hg performance test. the block average carbon
flow rate values for the
three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded carbon flow rate
measurements for the three
test runs. The average of
the three test runs
establishes your minimum
site-specific activated
carbon flow rate operating
limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies
to you according to the following table:

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For each . . . For the following . demonstrated initial
. . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel a. HF, HCl, and Cl2 i. You measure HF,
kilns at the facility, emissions must not HCl, and Cl2
including all process exceed 26 kg/hr (57 emissions for each
streams. lb/hr) HCl kiln using Method
equivalent. 26 or 26A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
8 or its
alternative, ASTM
D6735-01
(Reapproved 2009)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14); or Method
320 of appendix A
of this part or its
alternative, ASTM
D6348-03
(Reapproved 2010)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14); and

[[Page 65535]]

ii. You calculate
the HCl-equivalent
emissions for each
kiln using Equation
2 to this subpart;
and
iii. You sum the HCl-
equivalent values
for all kilns at
the facility using
Equation 3 to this
subpart; and
iv. The facility
total HCl-
equivalent does not
exceed 26 kg/hr (57
lb/hr).
2. Existing large tunnel a. PM emissions must i. The PM emissions
kiln (design capacity >=10 not exceed 0.018 kg/ measured using
tph of fired product), Mg (0.036 lb/ton) Method 5 of 40 CFR
including all process of fired product or part 60, appendix A-
streams. 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 3 or Method 29 of
gr/dscf) at 17% O2; 40 CFR part 60,
or. appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.018 kg/
Mg (0.036 lb/ton)
of fired product or
6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029
gr/dscf) at 17% O2;
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.018 kg/Mg
(0.036 lb/ton) of
fired product or
6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029
gr/dscf) at 17% O2.
b. Non-Hg HAP metals i. The non-Hg HAP
emissions must not metals emissions
exceed 0.0026 kg/hr measured using
(0.0057 lb/hr). Method 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
8, over the period
of the initial
performance test,
do not exceed
0.0026 kg/hr
(0.0057 lb/hr); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which non-Hg
HAP metals
emissions did not
exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
(0.0057 lb/hr).
c. Hg emissions must i. The Hg emissions
not exceed 2.1 E-05 measured using
kg/Mg (4.1 E-05 lb/ Method 29 of 40 CFR
ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
product or 7.7 8 or its
[micro]g/dscm at alternative, ASTM
17% O2 or 2.5 E-04 D6784-02
kg/hr (5.5 E-04 lb/ (Reapproved 2008)
hr). (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14), over the
period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
2.1 E-05 kg/Mg (4.1
E-05 lb/ton) of
fired product or
7.7 [micro]g/dscm
at 17% O2 or 2.5 E-
04 kg/hr (5.5 E-04
lb/hr); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 2.1 E-05 kg/
Mg (4.1 E-05 lb/
ton) of fired
product or 7.7
[micro]g/dscm at
17% O2 or 2.5 E-04
kg/hr (5.5 E-04 lb/
hr).
3. Existing small tunnel a. PM emissions must i. The PM emissions
kiln (design capacity <10 not exceed 0.19 kg/ measured using
tph of fired product), Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of Method 5 of 40 CFR
including all process fired product or part 60, appendix A-
streams. 4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021 3 or Method 29 of
gr/dscf) at 17% O2; 40 CFR part 60,
or. appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.19 kg/
Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of
fired product or
4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021
gr/dscf) at 17% O2;
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.19 kg/Mg
(0.37 lb/ton) of
fired product or
4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021
gr/dscf) at 17% O2.

[[Page 65536]]

b. Non-Hg HAP metals i. The non-Hg HAP
emissions must not metals emissions
exceed 0.047 kg/hr measured using
(0.11 lb/hr). Method 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
8, over the period
of the initial
performance test,
do not exceed 0.047
kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr);
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which non-Hg
HAP metals
emissions did not
exceed 0.047 kg/hr
(0.11 lb/hr).
c. Hg emissions must i. The Hg emissions
not exceed 1.7 E-04 measured using
kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/ Method 29 of 40 CFR
ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
product or 91 8 or its
[micro]g/dscm at alternative, ASTM
17% O2 or 8.5 E-04 D6784-02
kg/hr (0.0019 lb/ (Reapproved 2008)
hr). (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14), over the
period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.7 E-04 kg/Mg (3.3
E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product or 91
[micro]g/dscm at
17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
hr); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 1.7 E-04 kg/
Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/
ton) of fired
product or 91
[micro]g/dscm at
17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
hr).
4. New or reconstructed a. PM emissions must i. The PM emissions
large tunnel kiln (design not exceed 0.0089 measured using
capacity >=10 tph of fired kg/Mg (0.018 lb/ Method 5 of 40 CFR
product), including all ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
process streams. product or 3.2 mg/ 3, over the period
dscm (0.0014 gr/ of the initial
dscf) at 17% O2; or. performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.0089
kg/Mg (0.018 lb/
ton) of fired
product or 3.2 mg/
dscm (0.0014 gr/
dscf) at 17% O2;
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg
(0.018 lb/ton) of
fired product or
3.2 mg/dscm (0.0014
gr/dscf) at 17% O2.
b. Non-Hg HAP metals i. The non-Hg HAP
emissions must not metals emissions
exceed 0.0026 kg/hr measured using
(0.0057 lb/hr). Method 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
8, over the period
of the initial
performance test,
do not exceed
0.0026 kg/hr
(0.0057 lb/hr); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which non-Hg
HAP metals
emissions did not
exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
(0.0057 lb/hr).
c. Hg emissions must i. The Hg emissions
not exceed 1.4 E-05 measured using
kg/Mg (2.8 E-05 lb/ Method 29 of 40 CFR
ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
product or 6.2 8 or its
[micro]g/dscm at alternative, ASTM
17% O2 or 1.6 E-04 D6784-02
kg/hr (3.4 E-04 lb/ (Reapproved 2008)
hr). (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14), over the
period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.4 E-05 kg/Mg (2.8
E-05 lb/ton) of
fired product or
6.2 [micro]g/dscm
at 17% O2 or 1.6 E-
04 kg/hr (3.4 E-04
lb/hr); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 1.4 E-05 kg/
Mg (2.8 E-05 lb/
ton) of fired
product or 6.2
[micro]g/dscm at
17% O2 or 1.6 E-04
kg/hr (3.4 E-04 lb/
hr).

[[Page 65537]]

5. New or reconstructed a. PM emissions must i. The PM emissions
small tunnel kiln (design not exceed 0.015 kg/ measured using
capacity <10 tph of fired Mg (0.030 lb/ton) Method 5 of 40 CFR
product), including all of fired product or part 60, appendix A-
process streams. 4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021 3, over the period
gr/dscf) at 17% O2; of the initial
or. performance test,
according to the
calculations in
Sec.
63.8445(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.015 kg/
Mg (0.030 lb/ton)
of fired product or
4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021
gr/dscf) at 17% O2;
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.015 kg/Mg
(0.030 lb/ton) of
fired product or
4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021
gr/dscf) at 17% O2.
b. Non-Hg HAP metals i. The non-Hg HAP
emissions must not metals emissions
exceed 0.047 kg/hr measured using
(0.11 lb/hr). Method 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
8, over the period
of the initial
performance test,
do not exceed 0.047
kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr);
and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which non-Hg
HAP metals
emissions did not
exceed 0.047 kg/hr
(0.11 lb/hr).
c. Hg emissions must i. The Hg emissions
not exceed 1.7 E-04 measured using
kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/ Method 29 of 40 CFR
ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
product or 91 8 or its
[micro]g/dscm at alternative, ASTM
17% O2 or 8.5 E-04 D6784-02
kg/hr (0.0019 lb/ (Reapproved 2008)
hr). (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14), over the
period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.7 E-04 kg/Mg (3.3
E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product or 91
[micro]g/dscm at
17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
hr); and
ii. You establish
and have a record
of the applicable
operating limits
listed in Table 2
to this subpart
over the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 1.7 E-04 kg/
Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/
ton) of fired
product or 91
[micro]g/dscm at
17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
hr).
6. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Develop a
reconstructed periodic kiln. emissions. designed firing
time and
temperature cycle
for each periodic
kiln. You must
either program the
time and
temperature cycle
into your kiln or
track each step on
a log sheet; and
ii. Label each
periodic kiln with
the maximum load
(in tons) of
product that can be
fired in the kiln
during a single
firing cycle; and
iii. Develop
maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify
the frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices,
controls that
regulate air-to-
fuel ratios, and
controls that
regulate firing
cycles.
7. Existing, new or a. Minimize dioxin/ i. Conduct initial
reconstructed tunnel kiln. furan emissions. inspection of the
burners and
associated
combustion controls
(as applicable);
and
ii. Tune the
specific burner
type to optimize
combustion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard
that applies to you according to the following table:

[[Page 65538]]

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each . . . For the following continuous compliance
. . . by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a a. Each emission i. Collecting the DLA
DLA. limit in Table 1 pressure drop data
to this subpart according to Sec.
and each 63.8450(a); reducing
operating limit the DLA pressure
in Item 1 of drop data to 3-hour
Table 2 to this block averages
subpart for according to Sec.
tunnel kilns 63.8450(a);
equipped with a maintaining the
DLA. average pressure
drop across the DLA
for each 3-hour
block period at or
above the average
pressure drop
established during
the HF/HCl/Cl2
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated; or
continuously
monitoring the
bypass stack damper
position at least
once every 15
minutes during
normal kiln
operation, and
initiating
corrective action
within 1 hour after
the bypass damper is
opened allowing the
kiln exhaust gas to
bypass the DLA and
completing
corrective action in
accordance with your
OM&M plan; and
ii. Verifying that
the limestone hopper
and storage bin
(located at the top
of the DLA) contain
adequate limestone
by performing a
daily visual check,
which could include
one of the
following: (1)
Conducting a
physical check of
the hopper; (2)
creating a visual
access point, such
as a window, on the
side of the hopper;
(3) installing a
camera in the hopper
that provides
continuous feed to a
video monitor in the
control room; or (4)
confirming that load
level indicators in
the hopper are not
indicating the need
for additional
limestone; and
iii. Recording the
limestone feeder
setting daily (on a
per ton of fired
product basis) to
verify that the
feeder setting is
being maintained at
or above the level
established during
the HF/HCl/Cl2
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated; and
iv. Using the same
grade of limestone
from the same source
as was used during
the HF/HCl/Cl2
performance test;
maintaining records
of the source and
type of limestone;
and
v. Performing VE
observations of the
DLA stack at the
frequency specified
in Sec. 63.8470(e)
using Method 22 of
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7;
maintaining no VE
from the DLA stack.
2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a a. Each emission i. If you use a bag
DIFF or DLS/FF. limit in Table 1 leak detection
to this subpart system, as
and each prescribed in
operating limit 63.8450(e),
in Item 2 of initiating
Table 2 to this corrective action
subpart for within 1 hour of a
tunnel kilns bag leak detection
equipped with system alarm and
DIFF or DLS/FF. completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
operating and
maintaining the
fabric filter such
that the alarm is
not engaged for more
than 5 percent of
the total operating
time in a 6-month
block reporting
period; in
calculating this
operating time
fraction, if
inspection of the
fabric filter
demonstrates that no
corrective action is
required, no alarm
time is counted; if
corrective action is
required, each alarm
is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour;
if you take longer
than 1 hour to
initiate corrective
action, the alarm
time is counted as
the actual amount of
time taken by you to
initiate corrective
action; or
performing VE
observations of the
DIFF or DLS/FF stack
at the frequency
specified in Sec.
63.8470(e) using
Method 22 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
7; and maintaining
no VE from the DIFF
or DLS/FF stack; and
ii. Verifying that
lime is free-flowing
via a load cell,
carrier gas/lime
flow indicator,
carrier gas pressure
drop measurement
system, or other
system; recording
all monitor or
sensor output, and
if lime is found not
to be free flowing,
promptly initiating
and completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
recording the feeder
setting once during
each shift of
operation to verify
that the feeder
setting is being
maintained at or
above the level
established during
the HF/HCl/Cl2
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated.
3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a a. Each emission i. Collecting the
WS. limit in Table 1 scrubber liquid pH
to this subpart data according to
and each Sec. 63.8450(a);
operating limit reducing the
in Item 3 of scrubber liquid pH
Table 2 to this data to 3-hour block
subpart for averages according
tunnel kilns to Sec.
equipped with WS. 63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-
hour block period at
or above the average
scrubber liquid pH
established during
the HF/HCl/Cl2
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated; and
ii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data according
to Sec.
63.8450(a); reducing
the scrubber liquid
flow rate data to 3-
hour block averages
according to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the highest average
scrubber liquid flow
rate established
during the HF/HCl/
Cl2 and PM/non-Hg
HAP metals
performance tests in
which compliance was
demonstrated.

[[Page 65539]]

4. Tunnel kiln equipped with Each emission Collecting the carbon
an ACI system. limit in Table 1 flow rate data
to this subpart according to Sec.
and each 63.8450(a); reducing
operating limit the carbon flow rate
in Item 4 of data to 3-hour block
Table 2 to this averages according
subpart for to Sec.
tunnel kilns 63.8450(a);
equipped with maintaining the
ACI system. average carbon flow
rate for each 3-hour
block period at or
above the average
carbon flow rate
established during
the Hg performance
test in which
compliance was
demonstrated.
5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on a. Each emission i. Performing VE
control. limit in Table 1 observations of the
to this subpart stack at the
and each frequency specified
operating limit in Sec. 63.8470(e)
in Item 5 of using Method 22 of
Table 2 to this 40 CFR part 60,
subpart for appendix A-7; and
tunnel kilns maintaining no VE
with no add-on from the stack.
control.
ii. If your last
calculated total
facility maximum
potential HCl-
equivalent was not
at or below the
health-based
standard in Table 1
to this subpart,
collecting the kiln
process rate data
according to Sec.
63.8450(a); reducing
the kiln process
rate data to 3-hour
block averages
according to Sec.
63.8450(a);
maintaining the
average kiln process
rate for each 3-hour
block period at or
below the kiln
process rate
determined according
to Sec.
63.8445(g)(1).
6. Periodic kiln.............. a. Minimize HAP i. Using a designed
emissions. firing time and
temperature cycle
for each periodic
kiln; and
ii. For each firing
load, documenting
the total tonnage of
product placed in
the kiln to ensure
that it is not
greater than the
maximum load
identified in Item
1.a.ii of Table 3 to
this subpart; and
iii. Following
maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify the
frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices,
controls that
regulate air-to-fuel
ratios, and controls
that regulate firing
cycles; and
iv. Developing and
maintaining records
for each periodic
kiln, as specified
in Sec. 63.8490.
7. Tunnel kiln................ a. Minimize i. Maintaining and
dioxin/furan inspecting the
emissions. burners and
associated
combustion controls
(as applicable) and
tuning the specific
burner type to
optimize combustion
no later than 36
calendar months
after the previous
tune-up; and
ii. Maintaining
records of burner
tune-ups used to
demonstrate
compliance with the
dioxin/furan work
practice standard;
and
iii. Submitting a
report of most
recent tune-up
conducted with
compliance report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8395, you must meet each compliance date in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Compliance Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a(n) . . . Then you must . . . No later than . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed Comply with the December 28, 2015.
affected source and the applicable emission
initial startup of your limitations and
affected source is after work practice
December 18, 2014, but standards in Tables
before December 28, 2015. 1, 2, and 3 to this
subpart.
2. New or reconstructed Comply with the Initial startup of
affected source and the applicable emission your affected
initial startup of your limitations and source.
affected source is after work practice
December 28, 2015. standards in Tables
1, 2, and 3 to this
subpart.
3. Existing affected source. Comply with the December 26, 2018.
applicable emission
limitations and
work practice
standards in Tables
1, 2, and 3 to this
subpart.
4. Existing area source that Be in compliance Initial startup of
increases its emissions or with this subpart. your affected
its potential to emit such source as a major
that it becomes a major source.
source of HAP by adding a
new affected source or by
reconstructing.
5. New area source (i.e., an Be in compliance Initial startup of
area source for which with this subpart. your affected
construction or source as a major
reconstruction commenced source.
after December 18, 2014)
that increases its
emissions or its potential
to emit such that it
becomes a major source of
HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65540]]

As stated in Sec. 63.8480, you must submit each notification that
applies to you according to the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Deadlines for Submitting Notifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No later than . .
If you . . . You must . . . . As specified in . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Start up your affected Submit an Initial June 22, 2016..... Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
source before December 28, Notification.
2015.
2. Start up your new or Submit an Initial 120 calendar days Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
reconstructed affected source Notification. after you become
on or after December 28, 2015. subject to this
subpart.
3. Are required to conduct a Submit a 60 calendar days Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
performance test. notification of before the
intent to conduct performance test
a performance is scheduled to
test. begin.
4. Are required to conduct a Submit a 60 calendar days Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
compliance demonstration that Notification of following the
includes a performance test Compliance completion of the
according to the requirements Status, including performance test,
in Table 4 to this subpart. the performance by the close of
test results. business.
5. Are required to conduct a Submit a 30 calendar days Sec. 63.9(h).
compliance demonstration Notification of following the
required in Table 5 to this Compliance Status. completion of the
subpart that does not include compliance
a performance test (i.e., demonstrations,
compliance demonstrations for by the close of
the work practice standards). business.
6. Request to use the routine Submit your 120 calendar days .......................................
control device maintenance request. before the
alternative standard according compliance date
to Sec. 63.8420(d). specified in Sec.
63.8395.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8485, you must submit each report that
applies to you according to the following table:

Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit . . . contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report........ a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to
emission limitations the
(emission limits, requirements in
operating limits) Sec.
that apply to you, a 63.8485(b).
statement that there
were no deviations
from the emission
limitations during
the reporting period.
If there were no
periods during which
the CMS was out-of-
control as specified
in your OM&M plan, a
statement that there
were no periods
during which the CMS
was out-of-control
during the reporting
period.
b. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to
emission limitation the
(emission limit, requirements in
operating limit) Sec.
during the reporting 63.8485(b).
period, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8485(c)(9). If
there were periods
during which the CMS
was out-of-control,
as specified in your
OM&M plan, the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8485(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8505, you must comply with the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according
to the following table:

Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.................... Applicability..... Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions,
notifications.
Sec. 63.2.................... Definitions....... Definitions for part Yes.
63 standards.
Sec. 63.3.................... Units and Units and Yes.
Abbreviations. abbreviations for
part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4.................... Prohibited Compliance date; Yes.
Activities. circumvention;
severability.
Sec. 63.5.................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. applications;
approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)................. Applicability..... General Provisions Yes.
(GP) apply unless
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.

[[Page 65541]]

Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).......... Compliance Dates Standards apply at Yes.
for New and effective date; 3
Reconstructed years after effective
sources. date; upon startup;
10 years after
construction or
reconstruction
commences for section
112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).............. Notification...... Must notify if Yes.
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).............. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).............. Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes.
for New and become major must
Reconstructed comply with major
Area Sources That source standards
Become Major. immediately upon
becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply
when they were area
sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).......... Compliance Dates Comply according to Yes.
for Existing date in subpart,
Sources. which must be no
later than 3 years
after effective date;
for section 112(f)
standards, comply
within 90 calendar
days of effective
date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).......... [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).............. Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes.
for Existing Area become major must
Sources That comply with major
Become Major. source standards by
date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time
period (for example,
3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)................. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)........... Operation & General Duty to No. See Sec. 63.8420(b) for
Maintenance. minimize emissions. general duty requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).......... Operation & Requirement to correct No.
Maintenance. malfunctions ASAP.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)......... Operation & Operation and Yes.
Maintenance. maintenance
requirements
enforceable
independent of
emissions limitations.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).............. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).............. Startup, Shutdown, Requirement for No.
and Malfunction startup, shutdown,
Plan (SSMP). and malfunction (SSM)
and SSMP; content of
SSMP.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).............. Compliance Except You must comply with No.
During SSM. emission standards at
all times except
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).......... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance. operation and
maintenance plans,
records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)................. Alternative Procedures for getting Yes.
Standard. an alternative
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)................. Opacity/VE Requirements for No, not applicable.
Standards. opacity and VE
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)................. Compliance Procedures and Yes.
Extension. criteria for
Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)................. Presidential President may exempt Yes.
Compliance source category.
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).......... Performance Test Dates for conducting Yes.
Dates. initial performance
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations for
emission limits and
work practice
standards; must
conduct 180 calendar
days after first
subject to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).............. Section 114 Administrator may Yes.
Authority. require a performance
test under CAA
section 114 at any
time.
Sec. 63.7(a)(4).............. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Delay in Administrator of
Performance delay in performance
Testing Due To testing due to force
Force Majeure. majeure.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).............. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Performance Test. Administrator 60
calendar days before
the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).............. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Rescheduling. Administrator 5
calendar days before
scheduled date of
rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)................. Quality Requirements; test Yes.
Assurance(QA)/ plan approval
Test Plan. procedures;
performance audit
requirements;
internal and external
QA procedures for
testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)................. Testing Facilities Requirements for Yes.
testing facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).............. Conditions for Cannot conduct No, Sec. 63.8445 specifies
Conducting performance tests requirements.
Performance Tests. during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(3).......... Conditions for Must conduct according Yes.
Conducting to subpart and EPA
Performance Tests. test methods unless
Administrator
approves alternative;
must have at least
three test runs of at
least 1 hour each;
compliance is based
on arithmetic mean of
three runs;
conditions when data
from an additional
test run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).............. Testing under Administrator's Yes.
Section 114. authority to require
testing under section
114 of the Act.
Sec. 63.7(f)................. Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can
grant approval to use
an alternative test
method.
Sec. 63.7(g)................. Performance Test Must include raw data Yes.
Data Analysis. in performance test
report; must submit
performance test data
60 calendar days
after end of test
with the notification
of compliance status.
Sec. 63.7(h)................. Waiver of Tests... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to
waive performance
test.

[[Page 65542]]

Sec. 63.8(a)(1).............. Applicability of Subject to all Yes.
Monitoring monitoring
Requirements. requirements in
subpart.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).............. Performance Performance Yes.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).............. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. Monitoring with Requirements for No, not applicable.
Flares. flares in Sec.
63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).............. Monitoring........ Must conduct Yes.
monitoring according
to standard unless
Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).......... Multiple Effluents Specific requirements Yes.
and Multiple for installing and
Monitoring reporting on
Systems. monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).............. Monitoring System Maintenance consistent Yes.
Operation and with good air
Maintenance. pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........... Routine and Reporting requirements No.
Predictable SSM. for SSM when action
is described in SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).......... SSM not in SSMP... Reporting requirements Yes.
for SSM when action
is not described in
SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)......... Compliance with How Administrator No.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).......... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative
emission and
parameter
measurements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. CMS Requirements.. Requirements for CMS.. No, Sec. 63.8450 specifies
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).............. Continuous Opacity COMS minimum No, not applicable.
Monitoring System procedures.
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).............. CMS Requirements.. Zero and high level Yes.
calibration check
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8).......... CMS Requirements.. Out-of-control periods Yes.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2)...... CMS Quality Requirements for CMS Yes.
Control. quality control.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).............. CMS Quality Written procedures for No, Sec. 63.8425(b)(9) specifies
Control. CMS. requirements
Sec. 63.8(e)................. CMS Performance Requirements for CMS Yes.
Evaluation. performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).......... Alternative Procedures for Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).............. Alternative to Procedures for No, not applicable.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to
Test. approve alternative
relative accuracy
test for continuous
emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)................. Data Reduction.... COMS and CEMS data No, not applicable.
reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)................. Notification Applicability; State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)................. Initial Requirements for
Notifications. initial notifications.
Sec. 63.9(c)................. Request for Can request if cannot Yes.
Compliance comply by date or if
Extension. installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d)................. Notification of For sources that Yes.
Special commence construction
Compliance between proposal and
Requirements for promulgation and want
New Source. to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)................. Notification of Notify Administrator Yes.
Performance Test. 60 calendar days
prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)................. Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator No, not applicable.
Opacity Test. 30 calendar days
prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1).............. Additional Notification of Yes.
Notifications performance
When Using CMS. evaluation.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3).......... Additional Notification of COMS No, not applicable.
Notifications data use;
When Using CMS. notification that
relative accuracy
alternative criterion
were exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)................. Notification of Contents; submittal Yes.
Compliance Status. requirements.
Sec. 63.9(i)................. Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Administrator to
Deadlines. approve change in
when notifications
must be submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)................. Change in Previous Must submit within 15 Yes.
Information. calendar days after
the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)................ Recordkeeping/ Applicability; general Yes.
Reporting. information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............. General General requirements.. Yes.
Recordkeeping
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).......... Records Related to Recordkeeping of No.
SSM. occurrence and
duration of startups
and shutdowns.

[[Page 65543]]

Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)......... Records Related to Recordkeeping of No. See Sec. 63.8490(c)(2) for
SSM. failures to meet a recordkeeping of (1) date, time
standard. and duration; (2) listing of
affected source or equipment, and
an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over
the standard; and (3) actions to
minimize emissions and correct the
failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........ Records Related to Maintenance records...
SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..... Records Related to Actions taken to No.
SSM. minimize emissions
during SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii) CMS Records....... Records when CMS is Yes.
and (xiv). malfunctioning,
inoperative or out-of-
control.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....... Records........... Records when using
alternative to
relative accuracy
test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............. Records........... Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(15)........ Records........... Additional records for No, Sec. Sec. 63.8425 and
CMS. 63.8490 specify requirements
Sec. 63.10(d)(1) and (2)..... General Reporting Requirements for Yes.
Requirements. reporting;
performance test
results reporting.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. Reporting Opacity Requirements for No, not applicable.
or VE reporting opacity and
Observations. VE.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............. Progress Reports.. Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule
if under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............. SSM Reports....... Contents and No. See Sec. 63.8485(c)(9) for
submission.. malfunction reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(3)......... Additional CMS Requirements for CMS No, Sec. Sec. 63.8425 and
Reports. reporting. 63.8485 specify requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............. Reporting COMS Requirements for No, not applicable.
data. reporting COMS data
with performance test
data.
Sec. 63.10(f)................ Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to
Reporting. waive.
Sec. 63.11................... Flares............ Requirement for flares No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.12................... Delegation........ State authority to
enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13................... Addresses......... Addresses for reports, Yes.
notifications,
requests.
Sec. 63.14................... Incorporation by Materials incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15................... Availability of Information Yes.
Information. availability;
confidential
information.
Sec. 63.16................... Performance Track Requirements for Yes.
Provisions. Performance Track
member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as follows:

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet?
63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and
work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating
limits?
63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8640 What records must I keep?
63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

[[Page 65544]]

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Compliance Dates
Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Notifications
Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission limitations and work
practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay
ceramics manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards.

Sec. 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay
ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a
major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section.
(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and
sanitaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory
products, as defined in Sec. 63.9824, or brick and structural clay
products (BSCP), as defined in Sec. 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics
manufacturing facility.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

Sec. 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed
affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility.
(b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln,
sanitaryware tunnel kiln, sanitaryware shuttle kiln, ceramic tile glaze
line using glaze spraying, sanitaryware glaze spray booth, ceramic tile
spray dryer, and floor tile press dryer is an affected source.
(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart
are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section.
(1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for
refiring.
(2) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for
setting glazes on previously fired products.
(3) Glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those
kilns listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(4) Process units listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section that are permitted to, but do not, process first-fire ware,
until such time as they begin to process first-fire ware.
(5) Glaze spray operations that on average use wet glazes
containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis)
per spray booth over an entire calendar year.
(6) Raw material processing and handling.
(7) Wall tile press dryers.
(8) Sanitaryware ware dryers.
(9) Sources covered by subparts JJJJJ and SSSSS of this part.
(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the
affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.

Sec. 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) You must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance
dates in Table 8 to this subpart.
(b) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8630
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8630 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 and Work Practice Standards

Sec. 63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards
must I meet?

Sec. 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations
and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this
subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and
collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and
demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in
Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and
APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement
manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected sanitaryware
shuttle kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3
to this subpart.
(c) To meet the work practice standards for affected sources during
periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements
listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?

[[Page 65545]]

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified
for your affected source in Sec. 63.8545 and the date upon which
continuous monitoring systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control
equipment.
(c) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a
written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.8575.
(d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the
emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform
routine maintenance on the control device for that affected source, you
may bypass the source control device and continue operating the
affected source subject to the alternative standard established in this
paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provided you satisfy
the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance
alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar
days before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.8545. Your
request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the
control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance
activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of
the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be
accomplished during source shutdowns, provide information stating
whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in
fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is
performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this
section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation
required by the Administrator.
(2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4
percent of the annual operating uptime for each affected source.
(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance
alternative standard, if approved by the Administrator, must be
incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source's
title V permit.
(4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the
affected source is operating and the control device is offline by
complying with the applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart.
(5) You must minimize the time period during which the affected
source is operating and the control device is offline.
(e) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the
work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must
be in compliance with that work practice standard at all times, except
during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural
gas is not available.
(f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and
revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in
paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for
inspection by the delegated authority upon request.
(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be
monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous
compliance with the emission limitations in Sec. 63.8555. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during
performance tests.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long-term
maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection
schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last APCD).
(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system.
(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures
and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).
(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner
or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance
evaluation plan in Sec. 63.8(d)(2) is revised, the owner or operator
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
(10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8635 and
63.8640.
(11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations,
including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning
the operating parameters to the allowable limits.
(iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began
and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

[[Page 65546]]

(13) If you operate an affected source and you plan to take the
source control device out of service for routine maintenance, as
specified in Sec. 63.8570(d), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the affected
source during periods of routine maintenance of the source control
device when the affected source is operating and the control device is
offline.
(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of
routine maintenance on the source control device when the affected
source is operating and the control device is offline.
(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new
performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter
value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that
compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised
operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance
tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is
specified for your source in Sec. 63.8545 and according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).

Sec. 63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance
test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least
every 5 years following the initial performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the
parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.

Sec. 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and
calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4
to this subpart. Stacks to be tested at sanitaryware manufacturing
facilities shall be limited to products of combustion (POC) stacks and
those cooling stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.5 percent.
(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each
performance test required in this section, as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and
the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section to
determine compliance with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the production-based particulate
matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for ceramic tile roller
kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to this subpart, you
must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test
run using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.021

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant
per megagram (ton) of throughput
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams
(tons) of throughput per hour.

(2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic
tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware glaze spray
booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass
emissions per unit of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) for
each test run using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.022

Where:

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of PM
per megagram (ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis)
ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test run,
kilograms (pounds) per hour
G = glaze application rate during each performance test run,
megagrams (tons) of first-fire glaze sprayed per hour (dry weight
basis).

(3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits
for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, and floor tile
press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the sum of
the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic
equivalents (TEQs) for each test run using Equation 3:

[[Page 65547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.023

Where:

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, nanograms per kilogram of
throughput processed.
Mi = mass of dioxin or furan congener i during
performance test run, nanograms
TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for
congener i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart
n = number of congeners included in TEQ
Tr = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, kilograms of
throughput processed per hour.

(4) To determine compliance with the health-based standard for acid
gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must:
(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each
tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.024

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms
(pounds) per hour
EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per
cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility,
sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the
facility using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.025

Where:

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.
(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel or
roller kiln, you must calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent
emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your
facility using Equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.026

Where:

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for
kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of
throughput per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per
cubic meter

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility,
sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or
roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.027

Where:

(iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your facility
and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in

[[Page 65548]]

Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the maximum process rate
for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensure the total facility
maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-
equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would become your operating
limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.028

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams
(tons) per hour
HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62
kilograms (140 pounds) per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i,
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per
cubic meter

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility
and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in
Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the combination of maximum
process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential
HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The
maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process
rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.
(2) [Reserved]
(h) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits
specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that
is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart, you must meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs
(h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of
intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes.
(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used.
(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.
(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be
determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the
operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the performance
test based on the information included in the approved alternative
monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table
4 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?

[[Page 65549]]

(4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity.
(e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the EPA-454/R-98-015,
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems
must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner
consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not
be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric
filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14). Record each adjustment.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement
device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5)
and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative feed rate measurement.
(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1
percent of the temperature being measured.
(3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must
meet the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.8595(h) and 63.8(f).

Sec. 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to
Table 6 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8595 and Table 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 Sec. 63.8630(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?

(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs,
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control
device maintenance as specified in Sec. 63.8570(d) when the affected
source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data
averages. You must use all the valid data collected during all other
periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do
not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a
deviation from the monitoring requirements.

Sec. 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and work practice standards?

[[Page 65550]]

the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal
conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15
minutes.
(2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method
22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must promptly initiate and
complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are
observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack,
you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to
weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test,
you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to
your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily
basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30
consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the
frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
(3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must report these deviations by
following the requirements in Sec. 63.8635.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that
apply to you, by the dates specified.
(b) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 9
to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified.
(c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this
subpart, your Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 9
to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) The requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i).
(2) The operating limit parameter values established for each
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the
procedure used to establish the values.
(3) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak
detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8600(e).
(d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the
work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart,
and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to
fire the affected kiln, your notification of alternative fuel use must
include the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Identification of the affected kiln.
(3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel,
including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the
natural gas supply interruption began.
(4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.
(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to begin and
end.

Sec. 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 10 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 10 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.8545 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. This reporting
period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example,
if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting
period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June
30 and December 31, respectively.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the
report are true, accurate, and complete.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the
control device was offline and the affected source controlled by the
control device was operating, including the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and
restarted.
(ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and
the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control
device was offline.
(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance
request developed as specified in Sec. 63.8570(d). If the control
device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device
maintenance request, then you must report the information in paragraphs
(c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by
the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance
period and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
(B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled by the
control device operated while the control device was offline for
maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance
alternative standard during the current semiannual compliance period
and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
(C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs
(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of
affected source operating uptime during which the control device was
offline for routine maintenance using Equation 9.

[[Page 65551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.029

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which
control device was offline for routine control device maintenance
DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous
semiannual compliance period
DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine
control device maintenance alternative standard for the current
semiannual compliance period
SUp = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual
compliance period
SUc = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual
compliance period

(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that
apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there
were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice
standards during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was
out-of-control during the reporting period.
(7) The first compliance report must contain the startup production
rate for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic
tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln; the minimum APCD inlet
temperature for each APCD; and the temperature profile for each ceramic
tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and
sanitaryware tunnel kiln without an APCD.
(8) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report
such events in the compliance report by including the information in
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
(ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the
deviation occurred.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(8),
and paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. This includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.
(4) Whether each deviation occurred during routine control device
maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance
alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each
deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
(5) A description of any corrective action taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(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 source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A brief description of the process units.
(9) A brief description of the CMS.
(10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control
equipment since the last reporting period.
(e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting
authority.
(f) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the
work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart,
and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the
affected kiln, you must submit a report of alternative fuel use within
10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The
report must include the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Identification of the affected kiln.
(3) Reason for using the alternative fuel.
(4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln.
(5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended.
(6) Amount of alternative fuel used.
(g) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
performance test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart,
you must submit the results of the performance test following the
procedure specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this
section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/) at the time of the test,
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other

[[Page 65552]]

commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13.

Sec. 63.8640 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and
documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance
request, if you request to use the alternative standard under Sec.
63.8570(d).
(b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work
practice standard that applies to you.
(c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (10) of this section.
(1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the
corrective action taken.
(2) For each deviation, record the information in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
(ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment.
(iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.8570(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit
to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a ton
throughput processed basis.
(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedures.
(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with
records documenting conformance.
(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i)
through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your
sanitaryware shuttle kiln.
(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each
sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the same time and
temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference
numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets.
(ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the
time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of
whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.
(iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual
tonnage of greenware fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of
whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific
kiln.
(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate
compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware
shuttle kiln work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(9) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following
information:
(i) The date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown
period, recording the periods when the affected source was subject to
the standard applicable to startup and shutdown.
(ii) For periods of startup, the production rate and exhaust
temperature prior to the time the exhaust reaches the minimum APCD
inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with
an APCD) or the temperature profile is attained (for ceramic tile
roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and
sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD).
(iii) For periods of shutdown, the production rate and exhaust
temperature after the time the exhaust falls below the minimum APCD
inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with
an APCD) or the temperature profile is no longer maintained (for
ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray
dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD).
(10) All site-specific parameters, temperature profiles, and
procedures required to be established or developed according to the
applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

Table 11 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

Sec. 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

[[Page 65553]]

opacity emission limitations in Sec. 63.8555.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
(6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under
Sec. 63.8570(d).

Sec. 63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that
reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative
PM loadings.
Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile,
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry and
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and
sanitaryware products. A plant site that manufactures refractory
products, as defined in Sec. 63.9824, or brick and structural clay
products (BSCP), as defined in Sec. 63.8515, is not a clay ceramics
manufacturing facility.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected
source required to obtain such a permit.
Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum of the
2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this
subpart.
Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes
continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or
reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.
Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that
includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other
sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These
systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent.
Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas
stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.
Fired product means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have
gone through the firing process via kilns.
Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material
applied to ceramic products before firing.
Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic products,
which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of one or more glaze
spray booths) and other types of glazing operations (e.g., dipping,
flooding, centrifugal disc glazing, curtain coating).
Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze
on ceramic products.
Glaze spray operation means any type of glaze application that uses
glaze spraying, including glaze lines and glaze spray booths.
Greenware means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have not
gone through the firing process via kilns.
Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a
level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design
capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing clay
ceramics, whichever is earlier.
Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay ceramics, in
Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by
the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the
void space in the product, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking
pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity,
the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following
modifications.
Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that
kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long-term
integrity of the APCD.
Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart,
emissions of filterable PM that serve as a measure of total particulate
emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) or
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and as a surrogate for non-
mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not
limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.
Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a
period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected
facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An
increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not constitute a
period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity,
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel kiln except
that the unfired ceramic product travels through the kiln in a single
layer on rollers. In the clay ceramics source category, roller kilns
are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.
Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed with a
removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic
struts to allow entrance and egress. In the clay ceramics source
category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a free-flowing
powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and
compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used
at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and
starting the production process.
Startup production rate means the kiln, press dryer or spray dryer
production rate required to bring the process unit to the proper
operating temperature during startup.
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln
that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics source
category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include
caustic additives or other chemicals, as

[[Page 65554]]

the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to
increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limits . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel or HF and HCl emissions must not exceed
roller kilns at facility. 62 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (140
pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl
equivalent, under the health-based
standard, as determined using
Equations 4 and 5.
2. Existing floor tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed
0.063 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg)
(0.13 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of
fired product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3
E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 2.8 nanograms per kilogram
(ng/kg) of fired product.
3. Existing wall tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19
kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired
product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1
E-04 kg/Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product.
4. Existing first-fire a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17
sanitaryware tunnel kiln. kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware
fired.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3
E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of
greenware fired.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware
fired.
5. Existing tile glaze line with a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93
glaze spraying. kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first-fire
glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0
E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze sprayed (dry
weight basis).
6. Existing sanitaryware manual PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/
glaze application. Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight basis).
7. Existing sanitaryware spray PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/
machine glaze application. Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight basis).
8. Existing sanitaryware robot PM emissions must not exceed 4.5 kg/
glaze application. Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight basis).
9. Existing floor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput
processed.
10. Existing wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput
processed.
11. Existing floor tile press Dioxin/furan emissions must not
dryer. exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput
processed.
12. New or reconstructed floor a. PM emissions must not exceed
tile roller kiln. 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired
product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0
E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of
fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product.
13. New or reconstructed wall tile a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19
roller kiln. kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired
product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1
E-04 kg/Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product.
14. New or reconstructed first- a. PM emissions must not exceed
fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln. 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of
greenware fired.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.1
E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of
greenware fired.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware
fired.
15. New or reconstructed tile a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.31
glaze line with glaze spraying. kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire
glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0
E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze sprayed (dry
weight basis).
16. New or reconstructed PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/
sanitaryware manual glaze Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
application. sprayed (dry weight basis).
17. New or reconstructed PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/
sanitaryware spray machine glaze Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
application. sprayed (dry weight basis).
18. New or reconstructed PM emissions must not exceed 1.2 kg/
sanitaryware robot glaze Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
application. sprayed (dry weight basis).
19. New or reconstructed floor Dioxin/furan emissions must not
tile spray dryer. exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput
processed.
20. New or reconstructed wall tile Dioxin/furan emissions must not
spray dryer. exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput
processed.
21. New or reconstructed floor Dioxin/furan emissions must not
tile press dryer. exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput
processed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:

[[Page 65555]]

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped a. If you use a bag leak detection
with a DIFF or DLS/FF. system, initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete
corrective actions in accordance
with your OM&M plan; operate and
maintain the fabric filter such
that the alarm is not engaged for
more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period; or maintain no VE
from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and
b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the
feed hopper or silo and to the APCD
at all times for continuous
injection systems; maintain the
feeder setting (on a per ton of
throughput basis) at or above the
level established during the
performance test for continuous
injection systems in which
compliance was demonstrated.
2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped a. Maintain the average scrubber
with a WS. liquid pH for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average
scrubber liquid pH established
during the HF/HCl performance test
in which compliance was
demonstrated; and
b. Maintain the average scrubber
liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
block period at or above the
highest average scrubber liquid
flow rate established during the HF/
HCl and PM performance tests in
which compliance was demonstrated.
3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped Maintain the average carbon flow
with an ACI system. rate for each 3-hour block period
at or above the highest average
carbon flow rate established during
the Hg and dioxin/furan performance
tests in which compliance was
demonstrated.
4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending If you intend to comply with the
to comply with dioxin/furan dioxin/furan emission limit without
emission limit without an ACI an ACI system, maintain the stack
system. temperature at or below the highest
4-hour average stack temperature
established during the dioxin/furan
performance test in which
compliance was demonstrated.
5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no a. Maintain no VE from the stack;
add-on control. and
b. Maintain the kiln process rate at
or below the kiln process rate
determined according to Sec.
63.8595(g)(1) if your total
facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent emissions are greater
than the HCl-equivalent limit in
Table 1 to this subpart; and
c. Maintain the stack temperature at
or below the highest 4-hour average
stack temperature established
during the dioxin/furan performance
test in which compliance was
demonstrated.
6. Glaze spray operation equipped If you use a bag leak detection
with a FF. system, initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of a bag leak
detection system alarm and complete
corrective actions in accordance
with your OM&M plan; operate and
maintain the fabric filter such
that the alarm is not engaged for
more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period; or maintain no VE
from the FF stack; and
7. Glaze spray operation equipped a. Maintain the average scrubber
with a WS. pressure drop for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average
pressure drop established during
the PM performance test in which
compliance was demonstrated; and
b. Maintain the average scrubber
liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
block period at or above the
average scrubber liquid flow rate
established during the PM
performance test in which
compliance was demonstrated.
8. Glaze spray operation equipped Conduct daily inspections to verify
with a water curtain. the presence of water flow to the
wet control system; and
Conduct weekly visual inspections of
the system ductwork and control
equipment for leaks; and
Conduct annual inspections of the
interior of the control equipment
(if applicable) to determine the
structural integrity and condition
of the control equipment.
9. Glaze spray operation equipped Conduct an annual visual inspection
with baffles. of the baffles to confirm the
baffles are in place.
10. Spray dryer................... Maintain the average operating
temperature for each 3-hour block
period at or above the average
temperature established during the
dioxin/furan performance test in
which compliance was demonstrated.
11. Floor tile press dryer........ Maintain the average operating
temperature for each 3-hour block
period at or below the average
temperature established during the
dioxin/furan performance test in
which compliance was demonstrated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must comply with each work practice
standard in the following table that applies to you:

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to one of
For each . . . You must . . . the following
requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing, new, or a. Minimize HAP i. Use natural gas,
reconstructed sanitaryware emissions. or equivalent, as
shuttle kiln. the kiln fuel,
except during
periods of natural
gas curtailment or
supply interruption,
as defined in Sec.
63.8665; and
ii. Develop and use a
designed firing time
and temperature
cycle for each
sanitaryware shuttle
kiln. You must
either program the
time and temperature
cycle into your kiln
or track each step
on a log sheet; and
iii. Label each
sanitaryware shuttle
kiln with the
maximum load (in
tons) of greenware
that can be fired in
the kiln during a
single firing cycle;
and
iv. For each firing
load, document the
total tonnage of
greenware placed in
the kiln to ensure
that it is not
greater than the
maximum load
identified in item
1.a.iii; and
v. Develop and follow
maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify the
frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices,
controls that
regulate air-to-fuel
ratios, and controls
that regulate firing
cycles; and

[[Page 65556]]

vi. Develop and
maintain records for
each sanitaryware
shuttle kiln, as
specified in Sec.
63.8640.
2. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Establish the
reconstructed ceramic tile emissions. startup production
roller kiln, sanitaryware rate for each kiln
tunnel kiln, floor tile press or dryer; the
dryer or ceramic tile spray minimum APCD inlet
dryer during periods of temperature for each
startup. APCD; and
temperature profile
for each kiln or
dryer with no APCD
and include them in
your first
compliance report,
as specified in Sec.
63.8635(c)(7); and
ii. After initial
loading of the kiln
or dryer, remain at
or below the startup
production rate for
the kiln or dryer
until the kiln or
dryer exhaust
reaches the minimum
APCD inlet
temperature for a
kiln or dryer with
an APCD or until the
kiln or dryer
temperature profile
is attained for a
kiln or dryer with
no APCD; and
iii. If your kiln or
dryer has an APCD,
begin venting the
exhaust from the
kiln or dryer
through the APCD by
the time the kiln or
dryer exhaust
temperature reaches
the minimum APCD
inlet temperature.
3. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Do not load the
reconstructed ceramic tile emissions. kiln or dryer once
roller kiln, sanitaryware the kiln or dryer
tunnel kiln, floor tile press exhaust temperature
dryer or ceramic tile spray falls below the
dryer during periods of minimum APCD inlet
shutdown. temperature if the
kiln or dryer is
controlled by an
APCD or when the
kiln or dryer
temperature profile
is no longer
maintained for an
uncontrolled kiln or
dryer; and
ii. If your kiln or
dryer has an APCD,
continue to vent the
exhaust from the
kiln or dryer
through the APCD
until the kiln or
dryer exhaust
temperature falls
below the minimum
inlet temperature
for the APCD.
4. Existing, new or a. Minimize HAP i. Develop and use a
reconstructed ceramic tile emissions. temperature profile
roller kiln, sanitaryware for each kiln or
tunnel kiln, floor tile press dryer; and
dryer or ceramic tile spray ii. Develop and
dryer during periods of follow maintenance
routine control device procedures for each
maintenance. kiln that, at a
minimum, specify the
frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices
and controls that
regulate air-to-fuel
ratios; and
iii. Develop and
maintain records for
each kiln or dryer,
as specified in Sec.
63.8640(a)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8595, you must conduct each performance test
in the following table that applies to you:

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel or roller kiln........... a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
the number of A-1. the APCD and prior to any
traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
for all affected sources.
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A-1. 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
volumetric flow rate. 60, appendix A-1, or
Method 2G of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-1.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use Method 3A or 3B
molecular weight part 60, appendix A-2. of 40 CFR part 60,
analysis. appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2. ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual
procedures (but not the
instrumental procedures)
in Methods 3A and 3B.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR ...........................
content of the stack part 60, appendix A-3.
gas.
e. Measure HF and HCl i. Method 26A of 40 You may use Method 26 of 40
emissions. CFR part 60, appendix CFR part 60, appendix A-8,
A-8; or. as an alternative to using
Method 26A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-8, when no
acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
dissolved in water
droplets emitted by
sources controlled by a
WS) is present. ASTM D6735-
01 (Reapproved 2009)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Methods 26
and 26A.

[[Page 65557]]

ii. Method 320 of When using Method 320 of
appendix A of this appendix A of this part,
part. you must follow the
analyte spiking procedures
of section 13 of Method
320 of appendix A of this
part, unless you can
demonstrate that the
complete spiking procedure
has been conducted at a
similar source. ASTM D6348-
03 (Reapproved 2010)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Method 320
if the test plan
preparation and
implementation in Annexes
A1-A8 are mandatory and
the %R in Annex A5 is
determined for each target
analyte.
f. Measure PM i. Method 5 of 40 CFR ...........................
emissions. part 60, appendix A-
3; or.
ii. Method 29 of 40 ...........................
CFR part 60, appendix
A-8.
g. Measure Hg Method 29 of 40 CFR ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
emissions. part 60, appendix A-8. 2008) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Method 29
(portion for Hg only).
h. Measure dioxin/ Method 23 of 40 CFR ...........................
furan emissions. part 60, appendix A-7.
2. Glaze spray operation........... a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
the number of A-1. the APCD and prior to any
traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
for all affected sources.
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A-1. 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
volumetric flow rate. 60, appendix A-1, or
Method 2G of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-1.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use Method 3A or 3B
molecular weight part 60, appendix A-2. of 40 CFR part 60,
analysis. appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2. ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual
procedures (but not the
instrumental procedures)
in Methods 3A and 3B.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR ...........................
content of the stack part 60, appendix A-3.
gas.
e. Measure PM Method 5 of 40 CFR ...........................
emissions. part 60, appendix A-3.
f. Measure Hg Method 29 of 40 CFR ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
emissions (tile glaze part 60, appendix A-8. 2008) (incorporated by
spray operations reference, see Sec.
only). 63.14) may be used as an
alternative to Method 29
(portion for Hg only).
3. Spray dryer or floor tile press a. Select locations of Method 1 or 1A of 40 Sampling sites must be
dryer. sampling ports and CFR part 60, appendix located at the outlet of
the number of A-1. the APCD and prior to any
traverse points. releases to the atmosphere
for all affected sources.
b. Determine Method 2 of 40 CFR You may use Method 2A, 2C,
velocities and part 60, appendix A-1. 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
volumetric flow rate. 60, appendix A-1, or
Method 2G of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 2 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-1.
c. Conduct gas Method 3 of 40 CFR You may use Method 3A or 3B
molecular weight part 60, appendix A-2. of 40 CFR part 60,
analysis. appendix A-2, as
appropriate, as an
alternative to using
Method 3 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-2. ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual
procedures (but not the
instrumental procedures)
in Methods 3A and 3B.
d. Measure moisture Method 4 of 40 CFR ...........................
content of the stack part 60, appendix A-3.
gas.
e. Measure dioxin/ Method 23 of 40 CFR ...........................
furan emissions. part 60, appendix A-7.
4. Tunnel or roller kiln with no a. Establish the HCl-equivalent limit Using the procedures in
add-on control. operating limit(s) in Table 1 to this Sec. 63.8595(g)(1), you
for kiln process rate subpart and emissions must determine the maximum
if the total facility and production data process rate(s) for your
maximum potential HCl- from the HF/HCl/Cl2 kiln(s) that would ensure
equivalent emissions performance test. total facility maximum
are greater than the potential HCl-equivalent
HCl-equivalent limit emissions remain at or
in Table 1 to this below the HCl-equivalent
subpart. limit in Table 1 to this
subpart. The maximum
process rate(s) would
become your site-specific
process rate operating
limit(s).

[[Page 65558]]

b. Establish the stack Data from the You must continuously
temperature operating temperature measure the stack
limit. measurement device temperature and determine
during the dioxin/ and record the temperature
furan performance values for the three test
test. runs. The highest 4-hour
average stack temperature
of the three test runs
establishes your maximum
site-specific stack
temperature operating
limit.
5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is Determine the Production data You must measure and record
complying with PM and/or Hg production rate collected during the the production rate, on a
production-based emission limits. during each PM/Hg PM/Hg performance ton of throughput
test run in order to tests (e.g., the processed basis, of the
determine compliance number of ceramic affected kiln for each of
with PM and/or Hg pieces and weight per the three test runs.
production-based piece in the kiln
emission limits. during a test run
divided by the amount
of time to fire a
piece).
6. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped Establish the Data from the lime For continuous lime
with a DIFF or DLS/FF. operating limit for feeder during the HF/ injection systems, you
the lime feeder HCl performance test. must ensure that lime in
setting. the feed hopper or silo
and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times
during the performance
test and record the feeder
setting, on a per ton of
throughput basis, for the
three test runs. If the
feed rate setting varies
during the three test
runs, determine and record
the average feed rate from
the three test runs. The
average of the three test
runs establishes your
minimum site-specific feed
rate operating limit.
7. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped a. Establish the Data from the pH You must continuously
with a WS. operating limit for measurement device measure the scrubber
the average scrubber during the HF/HCl liquid pH, determine and
liquid pH. performance test. record the block average
pH values for the three
test runs, and determine
and record the 3-hour
block average of the
recorded pH measurements
for the three test runs.
The average of the three
test runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
liquid pH operating limit.
b. Establish the Data from the flow You must continuously
operating limit for rate measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the HF/ liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. HCl and PM determine and record the
performance tests. block average flow rate
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
flow rate measurements for
the three test runs. The
average of the three test
runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
liquid flow rate operating
level. If different
average wet scrubber
liquid flow rate values
are measured during the HF/
HCl and PM tests, the
highest of the average
values become your site-
specific operating limit.
8. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped Establish the Data from the carbon You must measure the carbon
with an ACI system. operating limit for flow rate measurement flow rate during each test
the average carbon conducted during the run, determine and record
flow rate. Hg performance test. the block average carbon
flow rate values for the
three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded carbon flow rate
measurements for the three
test runs. The average of
the three test runs
establishes your minimum
site-specific activated
carbon flow rate operating
limit.
9. Tunnel or roller kiln intending Establish the stack Data from the You must continuously
to comply with dioxin/furan temperature operating temperature measure the stack
emission limit without an ACI limit. measurement device temperature and determine
system. during the dioxin/ and record the temperature
furan performance values for the three test
test. runs. The highest 4-hour
average stack temperature
of the three test runs
establishes your maximum
site-specific stack
temperature operating
limit.
10. Glaze spray operation equipped a. Establish the Data from the pressure You must continuously
with a WS. operating limit for drop measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the PM pressure drop, determine
pressure drop. performance test. and record the block
average pressure drop
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
pressure drop measurements
for the three test runs.
The average of the three
test runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
pressure drop operating
limit.

[[Page 65559]]

b. Establish the Data from the flow You must continuously
operating limit for rate measurement measure the scrubber
the average scrubber device during the PM liquid flow rate,
liquid flow rate. performance test. determine and record the
block average flow rate
values for the three test
runs, and determine and
record the 3-hour block
average of the recorded
flow rate measurements for
the three test runs. The
average of the three test
runs establishes your
minimum site-specific
liquid flow rate operating
limit.
11. Spray dryer.................... Establish the Data from the You must continuously
operating limit for temperature measure the operating
operating temperature. measurement device temperature, determine and
during the dioxin/ record the block average
furan performance temperature values for the
test. three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded temperature
measurements for the three
test runs. The average of
the three test runs
establishes your minimum
site-specific operating
limit.
12. Floor tile press dryer......... Establish the Data from the You must continuously
operating limit for temperature measure the operating
operating temperature. measurement device temperature, determine and
during the dioxin/ record the block average
furan performance temperature values for the
test. three test runs, and
determine and record the 3-
hour block average of the
recorded temperature
measurements for the three
test runs. The average of
the three test runs
establishes your maximum
site-specific operating
limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by
calculating the sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the TEFs in the
following table:

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must calculate its
2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ using
For each dioxin/furan congener . . . the following TEF . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin............ 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.......... 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin......... 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin......... 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin......... 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin...... 0.01
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin..................... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran................ 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran.............. 0.03
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran.............. 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran............. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran............. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran............. 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran............. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran.......... 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran.......... 0.01
Octachlorodibenzofuran......................... 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies
to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated
For each . . . For the following initial compliance if
. . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel or a. HF, HCl, and i. You measure HF and
roller kilns at the facility. Cl2 emissions HCl emissions for
must not exceed each kiln using
62 kg/hr (140 lb/ Method 26 or 26A of
hr) HCl 40 CFR part 60,
equivalent. appendix A-8 or its
alternative, ASTM
D6735-01 (Reapproved
2009) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14); or
Method 320 of
appendix A of this
part or its
alternative, ASTM
D6348-03 (Reapproved
2010) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14); and

[[Page 65560]]

ii. You calculate the
HCl-equivalent
emissions for HF for
each kiln using
Equation 4 to this
subpart; and
iii. You sum the HCl-
equivalent values
for all kilns at the
facility using
Equation 5 to this
subpart; and
iv. The facility
total HCl-equivalent
does not exceed 62
kg/hr (140 lb/hr).
2. Existing floor tile roller a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.063 kg/Mg Method 5 of 40 CFR
(0.13 lb/ton) of part 60, appendix A-
fired product. 3 or Method 29 of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8595(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.063 kg/
Mg (0.13 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
applicable operating
limits listed in
Table 2 to this
subpart over the 3-
hour performance
test during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.063 kg/Mg
(0.13 lb/ton) of
fired product.
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
6.3 E-05 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(1.3 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of fired 8 or its
product. alternative, ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3
E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/
Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton)
of fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 2.8 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of fired 40 CFR part 60,
product. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
2.8 ng/kg of fired
product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 2.8 ng/kg
of fired product.
3. Existing wall tile roller a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
product. 3 or Method 29 of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8595(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.19 kg/
Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.19 kg/Mg
(0.37 lb/ton) of
fired product.
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
1.1 E-04 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(2.1 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of fired 8 or its
product. alternative, ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.1 E-04 kg/Mg (2.1
E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 1.1 E-04 kg/
Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton)
of fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.22 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of fired 40 CFR part 60,
product. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.22 ng/kg of fired
product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.22 ng/
kg of fired product.
4. Existing first-fire a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
sanitaryware tunnel kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of part 60, appendix A-
greenware fired. 3 or Method 29 of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8595(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.17 kg/
Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of
greenware fired; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.17 kg/Mg
(0.34 lb/ton) of
greenware fired.
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
1.3 E-04 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(2.6 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of 8 or its
greenware fired. alternative, ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6
E-04 lb/ton) of
greenware fired; and

[[Page 65561]]

ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/
Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton)
of greenware fired.
c. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 3.3 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
greenware fired. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
3.3 ng/kg of
greenware fired; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 3.3 ng/kg
of greenware fired.
5. Existing tile glaze line a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
with glaze spraying. must not exceed measured using
0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 0.93 kg/
Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.93 kg/Mg
(1.9 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
8.0 E-05 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(1.6 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of first- 8 or its
fire glaze alternative, ASTM
sprayed (dry D6784-02 (Reapproved
weight basis). 2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
8.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6
E-04 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 8.0 E-05 kg/
Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton)
of first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
6. Existing sanitaryware a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
manual glaze application. must not exceed measured using
18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ Method 5 of 40 CFR
ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 18 kg/Mg
(35 lb/ton) of first-
fire glaze sprayed
(dry weight basis);
and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 18 kg/Mg (35
lb/ton) of first-
fire glaze sprayed
(dry weight basis).
7. Existing sanitaryware spray a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
machine glaze application. must not exceed measured using
6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ Method 5 of 40 CFR
ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg
(13 lb/ton) of first-
fire glaze sprayed
(dry weight basis);
and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (13
lb/ton) of first-
fire glaze sprayed
(dry weight basis).
8. Existing sanitaryware robot a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
glaze application. must not exceed measured using
4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg
(8.9 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 4.5 kg/Mg
(8.9 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
9. Existing floor tile spray a. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
dryer. emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 19 ng/ using Method 23 of
kg of throughput 40 CFR part 60,
processed. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
19 ng/kg of
throughput
processed; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 19 ng/kg
of throughput
processed.
10. Existing wall tile spray a. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
dryer. emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.058 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
throughput appendix A-7, over
processed. the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.058 ng/kg of
throughput
processed; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.058 ng/
kg of throughput
processed.
11. Existing floor tile press a. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
dryer. emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.024 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
throughput appendix A-7, over
processed. the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.024 ng/kg of
throughput
processed; and

[[Page 65562]]

ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.024 ng/
kg of throughput
processed.
12. New or reconstructed floor a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
tile roller kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.019 kg/Mg Method 5 of 40 CFR
(0.037 lb/ton) part 60, appendix A-
of fired product. 3 or Method 29 of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8595(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.019 kg/
Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.019 kg/Mg
(0.037 lb/ton) of
fired product.
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
2.0 E-05 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(3.9 E-05 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of fired 8 or its
product. alternative, ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
2.0 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9
E-05 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 2.0 E-05 kg/
Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton)
of fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 1.3 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of fired 40 CFR part 60,
product. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.3 ng/kg of fired
product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 1.3 ng/kg
of fired product.
13. New or reconstructed wall a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
tile roller kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of fired part 60, appendix A-
product. 3 or Method 29 of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8595(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.19 kg/
Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.19 kg/Mg
(0.37 lb/ton) of
fired product.
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
1.1 E-04 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(2.1 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of fired 8 or its
product. alternative, ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
1.1 E-04 kg/Mg (2.1
E-04 lb/ton) of
fired product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 1.1 E-04 kg/
Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton)
of fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.22 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of fired 40 CFR part 60,
product. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.22 ng/kg of fired
product; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.22 ng/
kg of fired product.
14. New or reconstructed first- a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln. must not exceed measured using
0.048 kg/Mg Method 5 of 40 CFR
(0.095 lb/ton) part 60, appendix A-
of greenware 3 or Method 29 of 40
fired. CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, according to
the calculations in
Sec.
63.8595(f)(1), do
not exceed 0.048 kg/
Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of
greenware fired; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.048 kg/Mg
(0.095 lb/ton) of
greenware fired.
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
6.1 E-05 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(1.3 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of 8 or its
greenware fired. alternative, ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
6.1 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3
E-04 lb/ton) of
greenware fired; and

[[Page 65563]]

ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 6.1 E-05 kg/
Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton)
of greenware fired.
c. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.99 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
greenware fired. appendix A-7, over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.99 ng/kg of
greenware fired; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.99 ng/
kg of greenware
fired.
15. New or reconstructed tile a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
glaze line with glaze must not exceed measured using
spraying. 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 0.31 kg/
Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 0.31 kg/Mg
(0.61 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
b. Hg emissions i. The Hg emissions
must not exceed measured using
8.0 E-05 kg/Mg Method 29 of 40 CFR
(1.6 E-04 lb/ part 60, appendix A-
ton) of first- 8 or its
fire glaze alternative, ASTM
sprayed (dry D6784-02 (Reapproved
weight basis). 2008) (incorporated
by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), over
the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
8.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6
E-04 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which Hg
emissions did not
exceed 8.0 E-05 kg/
Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton)
of first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
16. New or reconstructed a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
sanitaryware manual glaze must not exceed measured using
application. 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg
(3.9 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 2.0 kg/Mg
(3.9 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
17. New or reconstructed a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
sanitaryware spray machine must not exceed measured using
glaze application. 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg
(3.2 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 1.6 kg/Mg
(3.2 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
18. New or reconstructed a. PM emissions i. The PM emissions
sanitaryware robot glaze must not exceed measured using
application. 1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 Method 5 of 40 CFR
lb/ton) of first- part 60, appendix A-
fire glaze 3, over the period
sprayed (dry of the initial
weight basis). performance test,
according to the
calculations in Sec.
63.8595(f)(2), do
not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg
(2.3 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis); and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which PM
emissions did not
exceed 1.2 kg/Mg
(2.3 lb/ton) of
first-fire glaze
sprayed (dry weight
basis).
19. New or reconstructed floor a. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
tile spray dryer. emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.071 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
throughput appendix A-7, over
processed. the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.071 ng/kg of
throughput
processed; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.071 ng/
kg of throughput
processed.
20. New or reconstructed wall a. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
tile spray dryer. emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.058 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
throughput appendix A-7, over
processed. the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.058 ng/kg of
throughput
processed; and
ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.058 ng/
kg of throughput
processed.
21. New or reconstructed floor a. Dioxin/furan i. The dioxin/furan
tile press dryer. emissions must emissions measured
not exceed 0.024 using Method 23 of
ng/kg of 40 CFR part 60,
throughput appendix A-7, over
processed. the period of the
initial performance
test, do not exceed
0.024 ng/kg of
throughput
processed; and

[[Page 65564]]

ii. You establish and
have a record of the
operating limits
listed in Table 2 to
this subpart over
the 3-hour
performance test
during which dioxin/
furan emissions did
not exceed 0.024 ng/
kg of throughput
processed.
22. Existing, new, or a. Minimize HAP i. Use natural gas,
reconstructed sanitaryware emissions. or equivalent, as
shuttle kiln. the kiln fuel; and
ii. Develop a
designed firing time
and temperature
cycle for the
sanitaryware shuttle
kiln. You must
either program the
time and temperature
cycle into your kiln
or track each step
on a log sheet; and
iii. Label each
sanitaryware shuttle
kiln with the
maximum load (in
tons) of greenware
that can be fired in
the kiln during a
single firing cycle;
and
iv. Develop
maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify the
frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices,
controls that
regulate air-to-fuel
ratios, and controls
that regulate firing
cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard
that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For each . . . For the following continuous compliance
. . . by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel or roller kiln a. Each emission i. If you use a bag
equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ limit in Table 1 leak detection
FF. to this subpart system, as
and each prescribed in
operating limit 63.8450(e),
in Item 1 of initiating
Table 2 to this corrective action
subpart for within 1 hour of a
kilns equipped bag leak detection
with DIFF or DLS/ system alarm and
FF. completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
operating and
maintaining the
fabric filter such
that the alarm is
not engaged for more
than 5 percent of
the total operating
time in a 6-month
block reporting
period; in
calculating this
operating time
fraction, if
inspection of the
fabric filter
demonstrates that no
corrective action is
required, no alarm
time is counted; if
corrective action is
required, each alarm
is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour;
if you take longer
than 1 hour to
initiate corrective
action, the alarm
time is counted as
the actual amount of
time taken by you to
initiate corrective
action; or
performing VE
observations of the
DIFF or DLS/FF stack
at the frequency
specified in Sec.
63.8620(e) using
Method 22 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-
7; and maintaining
no VE from the DIFF
or DLS/FF stack; and
ii. Verifying that
lime is free-flowing
via a load cell,
carrier gas/lime
flow indicator,
carrier gas pressure
drop measurement
system, or other
system; recording
all monitor or
sensor output, and
if lime is found not
to be free flowing,
promptly initiating
and completing
corrective actions
in accordance with
your OM&M plan;
recording the feeder
setting once each
shift of operation
to verify that the
feeder setting is
being maintained at
or above the level
established during
the HF/HCl
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated.
2. Tunnel or roller kiln a. Each emission i. Collecting the
equipped with a WS. limit in Table 1 scrubber liquid pH
to this subpart data according to
and each Sec. 63.8600(a);
operating limit reducing the
in Item 2 of scrubber liquid pH
Table 2 to this data to 3-hour block
subpart for averages according
kilns equipped to Sec.
with WS. 63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid pH for each 3-
hour block period at
or above the average
scrubber liquid pH
established during
the HF/HCl
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated; and
ii Collecting the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data according
to Sec.
63.8600(a); reducing
the scrubber liquid
flow rate data to 3-
hour block averages
according to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the highest average
scrubber liquid flow
rate established
during the HF/HCl
and PM performance
tests in which
compliance was
demonstrated.

[[Page 65565]]

3. Tunnel or roller kiln Each emission Collecting the carbon
equipped with an ACI system. limit in Table 1 flow rate data
to this subpart according to Sec.
and each 63.8600(a); reducing
operating limit the carbon flow rate
in Item 3 of data to 3-hour block
Table 2 to this averages according
subpart for to Sec.
kilns equipped 63.8600(a);
with ACI system. maintaining the
average carbon flow
rate for each 3-hour
block period at or
above the highest
average carbon flow
rate established
during the Hg and
dioxin/furan
performance tests in
which compliance was
demonstrated.
4. Tunnel or roller kiln Each emission Collecting the stack
intending to comply with limit in Table 1 temperature data
dioxin/furan emission limit to this subpart according to Sec.
without an ACI system. and each 63.8600(a); and
operating limit maintaining the
in Item 4 of stack temperature at
Table 2 to this or below the highest
subpart for stack temperature
kilns intending established during
to comply with the dioxin/furan
dioxin/furan performance test in
emission limit which compliance was
without an ACI demonstrated.
system.
5. Tunnel or roller kiln with a. Each emission i. Performing VE
no add-on control. limit in Table 1 observations of the
to this subpart stack at the
and each frequency specified
operating limit in Sec. 63.8620(e)
in Item 5 of using Method 22 of
Table 2 to this 40 CFR part 60,
subpart for appendix A-7; and
tunnel or roller maintaining no VE
kilns with no from the stack.
add-on control. ii. If your last
calculated total
facility maximum
potential HCl-
equivalent was not
at or below the
health-based
standard in Table 1
to this subpart,
collecting the kiln
process rate data
according to Sec.
63.8600(a); reducing
the kiln process
rate data to 3-hour
block averages
according to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average kiln process
rate for each 3-hour
block period at or
below the kiln
process rate
determined according
to Sec.
63.8595(g)(1).
iii. Collecting the
stack temperature
data according to
Sec. 63.8600(a);
and maintaining the
stack temperature at
or below the highest
stack temperature
established during
the dioxin/furan
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated.
6. Glaze spray operation Each emission If you use a bag leak
equipped with a FF. limit in Table 1 detection system,
to this subpart initiating
and each corrective action
operating limit within 1 hour of a
in Item 6 of bag leak detection
Table 2 to this system alarm and
subpart for completing
glaze spray corrective actions
operations in accordance with
equipped with a your OM&M plan;
FF. operating and
maintaining the
fabric filter such
that the alarm is
not engaged for more
than 5 percent of
the total operating
time in a 6-month
block reporting
period; in
calculating this
operating time
fraction, if
inspection of the
fabric filter
demonstrates that no
corrective action is
required, no alarm
time is counted; if
corrective action is
required, each alarm
is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour;
if you take longer
than 1 hour to
initiate corrective
action, the alarm
time is counted as
the actual amount of
time taken by you to
initiate corrective
action; or
performing VE
observations of the
FF stack at the
frequency specified
in Sec. 63.8620(e)
using Method 22 of
40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7; and
maintaining no VE
from the FF stack.
7. Glaze spray operation a. Each emission i. Collecting the
equipped with a WS. limit in Table 1 scrubber pressure
to this subpart drop data according
and each to Sec.
operating limit 63.8600(a); reducing
in Item 7 of the scrubber
Table 2 to this pressure drop data
subpart for to 3-hour block
kilns equipped averages according
with WS. to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
pressure drop for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average pressure
drop established
during the PM
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated; and
ii. Collecting the
scrubber liquid flow
rate data according
to Sec.
63.8600(a); reducing
the scrubber liquid
flow rate data to 3-
hour block averages
according to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average scrubber
liquid flow rate for
each 3-hour block
period at or above
the average scrubber
liquid flow rate
established during
the PM performance
test in which
compliance was
demonstrated.
8. Glaze spray operation a. Each emission i. Conducting daily
equipped with a water curtain. limit in Table 1 inspections to
to this subpart verify the presence
and each of water flow to the
operating limit wet control system;
in Item 8 of and
Table 2 to this ii. Conducting weekly
subpart for visual inspections
kilns equipped of the system
with a water ductwork and control
curtain. equipment for leaks;
and
iii. Conducting
annual inspections
of the interior of
the control
equipment (if
applicable) to
determine the
structural integrity
and condition of the
control equipment.
9. Glaze spray operation Each emission Conducting an annual
equipped with baffles. limit in Table 1 visual inspection of
to this subpart the baffles to
and each confirm the baffles
operating limit are in place.
in Item 9 of
Table 2 to this
subpart for
kilns equipped
with baffles.
10. Spray dryer............... Each emission Collecting the
limit in Table 1 operating
to this subpart temperature data
and each according to Sec.
operating limit 63.8600(a); reducing
in Item 10 of the operating
Table 2 to this temperature data to
subpart for 3-hour block
spray dryers. averages according
to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average operating
temperature for each
3-hour block period
at or above the
average operating
temperature
established during
the dioxin/furan
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated.

[[Page 65566]]

11. Floor tile press dryer.... Each emission Collecting the
limit in Table 1 operating
to this subpart temperature data
and each according to Sec.
operating limit 63.8600(a); reducing
in Item 11 of the operating
Table 2 to this temperature data to
subpart for 3-hour block
floor tile press averages according
dryers.. to Sec.
63.8600(a);
maintaining the
average operating
temperature for each
3-hour block period
at or below the
average operating
temperature
established during
the dioxin/furan
performance test in
which compliance was
demonstrated.
12. Sanitaryware shuttle kiln. a. Minimize HAP i. Maintaining
emissions. records documenting
your use of natural
gas, or an
equivalent fuel, as
the kiln fuel at all
times except during
periods of natural
gas curtailment or
supply interruption;
and
ii. If you intend to
use an alternative
fuel, submitting a
notification of
alternative fuel use
within 48 hours of
the declaration of a
period of natural
gas curtailment or
supply interruption,
as defined in Sec.
63.8665; and
iii. Submitting a
report of
alternative fuel use
within 10 working
days after
terminating the use
of the alternative
fuel, as specified
in Sec.
63.8635(g); and
iv. Using a designed
firing time and
temperature cycle
for each
sanitaryware shuttle
kiln; and
v. For each firing
load, documenting
the total tonnage of
greenware placed in
the kiln to ensure
that it is not
greater than the
maximum load
identified in Item
1.a.iii of Table 3
to this subpart; and
vi. Following
maintenance
procedures for each
kiln that, at a
minimum, specify the
frequency of
inspection and
maintenance of
temperature
monitoring devices,
controls that
regulate air-to-fuel
ratios, and controls
that regulate firing
cycles; and
vii. Developing and
maintaining records
for each
sanitaryware shuttle
kiln, as specified
in Sec. 63.8640.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8545, you must meet each compliance date in
the following table that applies to you:

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Compliance Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a(n) . . . Then you must . . . No later than . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed Comply with the December 28, 2015.
affected source and the applicable emission
initial startup of your limitations and
affected source is after work practice
December 18, 2014, but standards in Tables
before December 28, 2015. 1, 2, and 3 to this
subpart.
2. New or reconstructed Comply with the Initial startup of
affected source and the applicable emission your affected
initial startup of your limitations and source.
affected source is after work practice
December 28, 2015. standards in Tables
1, 2, and 3 to this
subpart.
3. Existing affected source. Comply with the December 26, 2018.
applicable emission
limitations and
work practice
standards in Tables
1, 2, and 3 to this
subpart.
4. Existing area source that Be in compliance Initial startup of
increases its emissions or with this subpart. your affected
its potential to emit such source as a major
that it becomes a major source.
source of HAP by adding a
new affected source or by
reconstructing.
5. New area source (i.e., an Be in compliance Initial startup of
area source for which with this subpart. your affected
construction or source as a major
reconstruction commenced source.
after December 18, 2014)
that increases its
emissions or its potential
to emit such that it
becomes a major source of
HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8630, you must submit each notification that
applies to you according to the following table:

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Deadlines for Submitting Notifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Start up your affected source Submit an Initial June 22, 2016.......... Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
before December 28, 2015. Notification.

[[Page 65567]]

2. Start up your new or reconstructed Submit an Initial 120 calendar days after Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
affected source on or after December Notification. you become subject to
28, 2015. this subpart.
3. Are required to conduct a Submit a notification 60 calendar days before Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
performance test. of intent to conduct a the performance test
performance test. is scheduled to begin.
4. Are required to conduct a Submit a Notification 60 calendar days Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec.
compliance demonstration that of Compliance Status, following the 63.10(d)(2).
includes a performance test including the completion of the
according to the requirements in performance test performance test, by
Table 4 to this subpart. results. the close of business.
5. Are required to conduct a Submit a Notification 30 calendar days Sec. 63.9(h).
compliance demonstration required in of Compliance Status. following the
Table 6 to this subpart that does completion of the
not include a performance test compliance
(i.e., compliance demonstrations for demonstrations, by the
the work practice standards). close of business.
6. Request to use the routine control Submit your request.... 120 calendar days .......................
device maintenance alternative before the compliance
standard according to Sec. date specified in Sec.
63.8570(d). 63.8545.
7. Own or operate an affected kiln Submit a notification 48 hours following the .......................
that is subject to the work practice of alternative fuel declaration of a
standard specified in Item 1 of use. period of natural gas
Table 3 to this subpart, and you curtailment or supply
intend to use a fuel other than interruption, as
natural gas or equivalent to fire defined in Sec.
the affected kiln. 63.8665.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8635, you must submit each report that
applies to you according to the following table:

Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit . . . contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report...... a. If there are no Semiannually
deviations from any according to the
emission requirements in
limitations or work Sec. 63.8635(b).
practice standards
that apply to you,
a statement that
there were no
deviations from the
emission
limitations or work
practice standards
during the
reporting period.
If there were no
periods during
which the CMS was
out-of-control as
specified in your
OM&M plan, a
statement that
there were no
periods during
which the CMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period.
b. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to the
emission limitation requirements in
(emission limit, Sec. 63.8635(b).
operating limit)
during the
reporting period,
the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.8635(c)(8). If
there were periods
during which the
CMS was out-of-
control, as
specified in your
OM&M plan, the
report must contain
the information in
Sec. 63.8635(d).
2. A report of alternative The information in If you are subject
fuel use. Sec. 63.8635(g). to the work
practice standards
specified in Table
3 to this subpart,
and you use an
alternative fuel to
fire an affected
kiln, by letter
within 10 working
days after
terminating the use
of the alternative
fuel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in Sec. 63.8655, you must comply with the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according
to the following table:

[[Page 65568]]

Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart KKKKK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.................... Applicability..... Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions,
notifications.
Sec. 63.2.................... Definitions....... Definitions for part Yes.
63 standards.
Sec. 63.3.................... Units and Units and Yes.
Abbreviations. abbreviations for
part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4.................... Prohibited Compliance date; Yes.
Activities. circumvention;
severability.
Sec. 63.5.................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. applications;
approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)................. Applicability..... General Provisions Yes.
(GP) apply unless
compliance extension;
GP apply to area
sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).......... Compliance Dates Standards apply at Yes.
for New and effective date; 3
Reconstructed years after effective
sources. date; upon startup;
10 years after
construction or
reconstruction
commences for section
112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).............. Notification...... Must notify if Yes.
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).............. [Reserved]........
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).............. Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes.
for New and become major must
Reconstructed comply with major
Area Sources That source standards
Become Major. immediately upon
becoming major,
regardless of whether
required to comply
when they were area
sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).......... Compliance Dates Comply according to Yes.
for Existing date in subpart,
Sources. which must be no
later than 3 years
after effective date;
for section 112(f)
standards, comply
within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).......... [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).............. Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes.
for Existing Area become major must
Sources That comply with major
Become Major. source standards by
date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time
period (for example,
3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)................. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)........... Operation & General Duty to No. See Sec. 63.8570(b) for
Maintenance. minimize emissions. general duty requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).......... Operation & Requirement to correct No.
Maintenance. malfunctions ASAP.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)......... Operation & Operation and Yes.
Maintenance. maintenance
requirements
enforceable
independent of
emissions limitations.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).............. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).............. Startup, Shutdown, Requirement for No.
and Malfunction startup, shutdown,
Plan (SSMP). and malfunction (SSM)
and SSMP; content of
SSMP.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).............. Compliance Except You must comply with No.
During SSM. emission standards at
all times except
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).......... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance. operation and
maintenance plans,
records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)................. Alternative Procedures for getting Yes.
Standard. an alternative
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)................. Opacity/VE Requirements for No, not applicable.
Standards. opacity and VE
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)................. Compliance Procedures and Yes.
Extension. criteria for
Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)................. Presidential President may exempt Yes.
Compliance source category.
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).......... Performance Test Dates for conducting Yes.
Dates. initial performance
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations for
emission limits and
work practice
standards; must
conduct 180 days
after first subject
to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).............. Section 114 Administrator may Yes.
Authority. require a performance
test under CAA
section 114 at any
time.
Sec. 63.7(a)(4).............. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Delay in Administrator of
Performance delay in performance
Testing Due To testing due to force
Force Majeure. majeure.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).............. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).............. Notification of Must notify Yes.
Rescheduling. Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date
of rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)................. Quality Assurance Requirements; test Yes.
(QA)/Test Plan. plan approval
procedures;
performance audit
requirements;
internal and external
QA procedures for
testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)................. Testing Facilities Requirements for Yes.
testing facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).............. Conditions for Performance tests must No, Sec. 63.8595 specifies
Conducting be conducted under requirements.
Performance Tests. representative
conditions.
Cannot conduct Yes.
performance tests
during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.

[[Page 65569]]

Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(3).......... Conditions for Must conduct according Yes.
Conducting to subpart and EPA
Performance Tests. test methods unless
Administrator
approves alternative;
must have at least
three test runs of at
least 1 hour each;
compliance is based
on arithmetic mean of
three runs;
conditions when data
from an additional
test run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).............. Testing under Administrator's Yes.
Section 114. authority to require
testing under section
114 of the Act.
Sec. 63.7(f)................. Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can
grant approval to use
an alternative test
method.
Sec. 63.7(g)................. Performance Test Must include raw data Yes.
Data Analysis. in performance test
report; must submit
performance test data
60 days after end of
test with the
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.7(h)................. Waiver of Tests... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to
waive performance
test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).............. Applicability of Subject to all Yes.
Monitoring monitoring
Requirements. requirements in
subpart.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).............. Performance Performance Yes.
Specifications. Specifications in
appendix B of 40 CFR
part 60 apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).............. [Reserved]........ ...................... No.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. Monitoring with Requirements for No, not applicable.
Flares. flares in Sec.
63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).............. Monitoring........ Must conduct Yes.
monitoring according
to standard unless
Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).......... Multiple Effluents Specific requirements Yes.
and Multiple for installing and
Monitoring reporting on
Systems. monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).............. Monitoring System Maintenance consistent Yes.
Operation and with good air
Maintenance. pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........... Routine and Reporting requirements No.
Predictable SSM. for SSM when action
is described in SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).......... SSM not in SSMP... Reporting requirements Yes.
for SSM when action
is not described in
SSMP.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)......... Compliance with How Administrator No.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with
Requirements. operation and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).......... Monitoring System Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative
emission and
parameter
measurements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. CMS Requirements.. Requirements for CMS.. No, Sec. 63.8600 specifies
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).............. Continuous Opacity COMS minimum No, not applicable.
Monitoring System procedures.
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).............. CMS Requirements.. Zero and high level Yes.
calibration check
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8).......... CMS Requirements.. Out-of-control periods Yes.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2)...... CMS Quality Requirements for CMS Yes.
Control. quality control.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).............. CMS Quality Written procedures for No, Sec. 63.8575(b)(9) specifies
Control. CMS. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(e)................. CMS Performance Requirements for CMS Yes.
Evaluation. performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).......... Alternative Procedures for Yes.
Monitoring Method. Administrator to
approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).............. Alternative to Procedures for No, not applicable.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to
Test. approve alternative
relative accuracy
test for continuous
emission monitoring
systems (CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)................. Data Reduction.... COMS and CEMS data No, not applicable.
reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)................. Notification Applicability; State Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)................. Initial Requirements for Yes.
Notifications. initial notifications.
Sec. 63.9(c)................. Request for Can request if cannot Yes.
Compliance comply by date or if
Extension. installed BACT/LAER.
Sec. 63.9(d)................. Notification of For sources that Yes.
Special commence construction
Compliance between proposal and
Requirements for promulgation and want
New Source. to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)................. Notification of Notify Administrator Yes.
Performance Test. 60 days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)................. Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator No, not applicable.
Opacity Test. 30 days prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1).............. Additional Notification of Yes.
Notifications performance
When Using CMS. evaluation.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3).......... Additional Notification of COMS No, not applicable.
Notifications data use;
When Using CMS. notification that
relative accuracy
alternative criterion
were exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)................. Notification of Contents; submittal Yes.
Compliance Status. requirements.

[[Page 65570]]

Sec. 63.9(i)................. Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Administrator to
Deadlines. approve change in
when notifications
must be submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)................. Change in Previous Must submit within 15 Yes.
Information. days after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)................ Recordkeeping/ Applicability; general Yes.
Reporting. information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............. General General requirements.. Yes.
Recordkeeping
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).......... Records Related to Recordkeeping of No.
SSM. occurrence and
duration of startups
and shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)......... Records Related to Recordkeeping of No. See Sec. 63.8640(c)(2) for
SSM. failures to meet a recordkeeping of (1) date, time
standard. and duration; (2) listing of
affected source or equipment, and
an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over
the standard; and (3) actions to
minimize emissions and correct the
failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........ Records Related to Maintenance records... Yes.
SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..... Records Related to Actions taken to No.
SSM. minimize emissions
during SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii) CMS Records....... Records when CMS is Yes.
and (xiv). malfunctioning,
inoperative or out-of-
control.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....... Records........... Records when using No, not applicable.
alternative to
relative accuracy
test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............. Records........... Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(15)........ Records........... Additional records for No, Sec. Sec. 63.8575 and
CMS. 63.8640 specify requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1) and (2)..... General Reporting Requirements for Yes.
Requirements. reporting;
performance test
results reporting.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. Reporting Opacity Requirements for No, not applicable.
or VE reporting opacity and
Observations. VE.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............. Progress Reports.. Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule
if under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............. SSM Reports....... Contents and No. See Sec. 63.8635(c)(8) for
submission. malfunction reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(3)......... Additional CMS Requirements for CMS No, Sec. Sec. 63.8575 and
Reports. reporting. 63.8635 specify requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............. Reporting COMS Requirements for No, not applicable.
data. reporting COMS data
with performance test
data.
Sec. 63.10(f)................ Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to
Reporting. waive.
Sec. 63.11................... Flares............ Requirement for flares No, not applicable.
Sec. 63.12................... Delegation........ State authority to Yes.
enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13................... Addresses......... Addresses for reports, Yes.
notifications,
requests.
Sec. 63.14................... Incorporation by Materials incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15................... Availability of Information Yes.
Information. availability;
confidential
information.
Sec. 63.16................... Performance Track Requirements for Yes.
Provisions. Performance Track
member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-25724 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.