National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review, 48708-48748 [2019-18485]

Download as PDF 48708 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015; FRL–9998–85– OAR] RIN 2060–AT08 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Lime Manufacturing Plants. We are proposing to find that risks due to emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the technology review, we are proposing to find that there are no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate revision of the standards. We are proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and to add provisions regarding electronic reporting. SUMMARY: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before October 16, 2019. Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on or before September 23, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/lime-manufacturingplants-national-emission-standardshazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public hearing. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 DATES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0015 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0015. • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0015, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except federal holidays). Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5426; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: eddinger.jim@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mike Ciolek, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 4921; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: ciolek.mike@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E–19), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 353–6266; and email address: ayres.sara@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. Please contact Adrian Gates at (919) 541–4860 or by email at gates.adrian@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015. All documents in the docket are listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0015. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0015. Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CFR Code of Federal Regulations D/F dioxins and furans ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG emergency response planning guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool g/dscm grams per dry standard cubic meter HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer lb/tsf pounds per ton of stone feed MACT maximum achievable control technology mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OMB Office of Management and Budget PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PM particulate matter POM polycyclic organic matter ppm parts per million PSH processed stone handling system REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure model UF uncertainty factor PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48709 UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48710 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030, July 1992), the Lime Manufacturing source category is any facility engaged in producing high calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite. However, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories are not included in the source category (see 69 FR 397, January 5, 2004). TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NESHAP Lime Manufacturing ................................................................ Lime Manufacturing Plants ..................................................... 1 North 32741, 33111, 3314, 327125 American Industry Classification System. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/limemanufacturing-plants-nationalemission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 NAICS code 1 Source category The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less often than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The NESHAP for the Lime Manufacturing source category was promulgated on January 5, 2004 (69 FR 394), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. As promulgated in 2004, the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Other captive lime manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to the NESHAP. See 67 FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations. A lime manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by calcination. However, the NESHAP specifically excludes lime kilns that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening processes as the feedstock. Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and deadburned dolomite. The NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: Each lime kiln and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling (PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes all equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. The materials processing operations associated with lime products (such as quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust handling, quarry or mining operations, limestone sizing operations, and fuels are not subject to the NESHAP. Processed stone PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48711 handling operations are further distinguished in the NESHAP as: (1) Whether their emissions are vented through a stack, (2) whether their emissions are fugitive emissions, (3) whether their emissions are vented through a stack with some fugitive emissions from the partial enclosure, and/or (4) whether the source is enclosed in a building. Finally, lime hydrators and cooler nuisance dust collectors are not included under the definition of affected source under the NESHAP. The NESHAP established particulate matter (PM) emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. Particulate matter is measured solely as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP. The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for non-volatile and semivolatile HAP metals. The PM emission limit for the existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds PM per ton of stone feed (lb PM/tsf) for kilns using dry air pollution control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that have installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb PM/tsf. Kilns which meet the criteria for the 0.60 lb PM/tsf emission limit must continue to use a wet scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet the 0.60 lb PM/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry control, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb PM/tsf emission limit, regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The PM emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb PM/tsf. As a compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb PM/tsf limit) may be applied to the combined emissions of all the kilns and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission limit would be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the individual kilns, except that no new kiln may exceed the PM emission level of 0.10 lb PM/tsf. Kilns that are required to meet a 0.60 lb PM/tsf emission limit must meet that limit individually, and may not be included in any averaging calculations. Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack are subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g PM/dscm) and 7-percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations that are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g PM/ E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48712 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 dscm limit but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from PSH operations are subject to a 10-percent opacity limit. For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the building’s vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7-percent opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7percent opacity. The final rule does not allow averaging of PSH operations. C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? During the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA collected information on the emissions, operations, and location of lime manufacturing plants. Since this information was collected prior to the 2004 promulgation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA prepared a questionnaire in 2017 in order to collect current information on the location and number of lime kilns, types and quantities of emissions, annual operating hours, types and quantities of fuels burned, and information on air pollution control devices and emission points. Nine companies completed the 2017 questionnaire for which they reported data for 32 of 35 major source facilities. The EPA used data from the 2017 questionnaires to develop the dataset for the NESHAP risk assessment. The list of facilities that are subject to the NESHAP was developed using the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, the 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI 2014) and the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Directory of Lime Plants and Hydration Plants in the United States in 2014. The list of facilities, as well as which companies would receive the questionnaire, was reviewed by the industry trade association. The final risk modeling datafile included all 35 major source facilities. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? In addition to the ECHO and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed the additional information sources listed below and consulted with stakeholders regulated under the Lime Manufacturing VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 NESHAP to determine whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies by lime manufacturing sources. These include the following: • Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits submitted by facilities as part of their response to the questionnaire and collected from state agencies; • Information on air pollution control options in the lime manufacturing industry from the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC); and • Communication with trade groups and associations representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their members. III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this action. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with the EPA’s response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: [t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’. See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the available health 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this action. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ or target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. 3 Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https://yosemite. epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943 A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007unsigned.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48713 • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review. C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category? In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), we would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section IV.B of this preamble). The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections that follow this paragraph E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48714 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB in 2009; 4 and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 A questionnaire was sent out to nine companies (covering 44 facilities) in 2017. The available test data collected were from the 1990’s through 2017. Of the 44 facilities that received the questionnaire, 32 were verified to be major sources and were included in the modeling file. Based on the results of the questionnaire and research into three non-questionnaire facilities, there are 96 lime kilns at the 35 major sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. Particulate matter test data were provided for most of the lime kilns and the lime kiln and coolers with common exhausts. PM particle size by the kiln emission control type was assigned based on data from AP–42.5 For kiln controls or other sources not listed in AP–42, default particles sizes and mass distributions were used for the entire source category. In addition to kiln data, a small amount of PSH operations provided emissions test data in response to the questionnaire. Because there was so little test data for PSH operations, air emissions inventory (AEI) data 6 were 4 U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. 5 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP–42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1995. 6 Title V of the Clean Air Act requires major sources of air pollution and certain other facilities to apply for and obtain title V operating permits. State and local authorities overseeing the title V permitting program typically require permit holders to develop annual air emissions inventories for the purposes of fee determination. These annual inventories were requested in the questionnaire and the data were used for this modeling effort. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 used as the source of PSH PM emissions in lieu of the limited test data. Test data for HAP metals were provided for 17 emission release points of lime kilns. Data were provided both for kilns only, and for kilns with comingled lime cooler exhaust. Because the data set received was very limited and the emissions were not significantly different, emissions data from standalone kilns and shared stacks were treated as similar rather than categorized separately for purposes of estimating emissions. For non-mercury HAP metals, test data were used in conjunction with corresponding PM data to develop mass fractions of HAP metals (i.e., HAP metal/PM). These were applied to PM test data to estimate HAP metal emissions for kilns, coolers, and kilns/coolers with common exhaust. For mercury emissions, test results were used in conjunction with operating hours to estimate annual mercury emissions for kilns, coolers, and kilns/ coolers with common exhaust. Test data for hydrochloric acid (HCl) were provided for 33 emission release points of lime kilns and kilns/coolers with common exhausts. Organic HAP test data were provided for nine emission release points of kilns/coolers with common exhaust. Dioxins and furans (D/F) test data were provided for five emission release points of both lime kilns and kilns/coolers with common exhausts. Because the HAP emissions data set received is very limited, emission factors were developed from test data collected from the questionnaire and AEI data. When emissions test data or AEI data were available for an applicable emission unit, the average emission rate of the available data was applied to that applicable emissions unit. In cases where data were unavailable for an applicable emission unit, default emissions values were developed and assigned as needed. Emission defaults were determined as the average of all test or AEI data in each applicable emission unit category (e.g., kiln vs. PSH operations) or sub-category (e.g., existing kilns with wet scrubbers). Due to the nature of the data provided for PM and HAP compounds (i.e., HAP metal, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F), stand-alone kilns and kilns/coolers with common exhausts were treated the same rather than categorizing their emissions separately. Specifically, there were not enough data (e.g., in the case of HAP metals, organic HAP, and D/F) provided for stand-alone kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts or variation (e.g., in the case of PM and HCl) in the data to justify the development of subcategorized emission factor sets based PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 on the difference between stand-alone kilns and kilns that had co-mingled kiln and cooler stacks. PSH operations did not require review or development of individual sub-categories. For units that did not provide test result data, default emission rates were developed based on the category of kiln/ cooler (new or existing) and the service date of the wet scrubber (before or after January 5, 2004), since these factors align with the PM emission limits of the kiln in the rule. To develop default factors for PM and HCl, the average test results of all single kiln emission units by category/status were determined for each of three default categories: Existing kilns with a wet scrubber installed before January 5, 2004, existing kilns without a wet scrubber installed before January 5, 2004, and new kilns. Six stand-alone lime coolers were reported through the questionnaire. Of these, four reported PM emissions test data for a total of eleven PM test reports. For these four coolers, emissions were determined as the average of the reported PM test data for each applicable emission unit. The two remaining lime coolers were assigned a default value that was developed as the average of the emissions from the four coolers. All of the PSH operations were reported as fugitive sources in the questionnaire, with the exception of eleven point source PSH emission units. Very little PM emissions test data were provided for PSH operations, so emissions from these sources were determined from reported 2015 and 2016 AEIs, where available. Emissions values were tallied in units of tpy. Most questionnaire respondents provided AEIs in their responses. However, not all AEIs have PSH emissions reported explicitly, and for those that did, some of the unit names/IDs did not match with those reported in the questionnaire. The questionnaire emission release point IDs were used as the basis for developing PM emissions from AEI data. Emissions data per unit was assigned using AEIs where the unit names matched, averaging the 2015 and 2016 values. Units with no AEI data were assigned the default PM emissions average that was developed from AEI data. To determine the actual annual emissions of non-mercury HAP metals in tpy from kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts, PM emissions were first determined using available test data. Each kiln emissions unit was assigned a PM value based on average actual EPA Method 5 test data for the unit or assigned a default value if PM test data were unavailable. PM E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules emissions in units of pounds per hour (lb/hr) were determined as the average of reported test values (or developed default value) times the rate of stone feed during the most recent performance test (collected through questionnaire) in units of tons of stone feed per hour. When the rate of stone feed per hour was unreported or claimed as CBI, a default rate (determined as the average of all reported rates) was assigned. Annual PM emissions in units of tpy were determined by multiplying hourly PM emissions by the actual annual emission unit operating hours reported in the Information Collection Request (ICR) and also by the unit conversion from pounds to tons. When the emission unit operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, a default value (determined as the average of all reported operating hours) was assigned. Actual annual PM emissions were then speciated per the HAP metal emission factor sets. Actual emissions of mercury, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F emissions for kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts were based on the test data reported to the questionnaire (in units of lb/hr) multiplied by the reported actual operating hours of each unit. When the emission unit operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, a default value (determined as the average of all reported operating hours) was assigned. Stand-alone lime coolers only emit PM and metal HAP constituents. Most of the lime coolers reported through the questionnaire were annotated as being co-mingled with kiln exhaust, not standalone emission units. However, six stand-alone lime coolers were reported to the questionnaire. There were no metal HAP test data provided for standalone lime coolers through the questionnaire. As such, one universal set of default metal HAP mass fractions of PM was developed from kiln test data. These defaults were applied to all other PM emission units, including stand-alone coolers. When the rate of stone feed or operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, default rates (determined as the average of all reported rates) were assigned. Process stone handling operations have the potential to emit HAP metals in limestone dust. Eleven PSH units were identified as venting emissions through a stack and the remaining PSH data were modeled as fugitive emissions due to a lack of data in the questionnaire. Operating hours were not specifically reported for PSH operations, so average kiln operating hours were used when reported, otherwise kiln default operating hours were used. Actual emissions were determined VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 using the reported or default PM emissions developed from the AEI multiplied by the HAP speciation. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We discussed the consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) Allowable HAP metal emissions were calculated by using the existing applicable PM limit, scaled production, and the maximum operating hours per year of 8,760. The hourly production scalar (i.e., tsf scalar) was developed by comparing the rate of production during the most recent performance test (which is used for the actual emission calculation) to the maximum production capacity. Site specific scalars and one default scalar were developed to scale the test production rate to the maximum capacity. Where production data were unreported or claimed as CBI, default rates were developed. For more details on the development of the default values, see the memorandum titled Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015). Allowable emissions of mercury, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F emissions for kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts were calculated using 8,760 hours. Allowable emissions for PSH operations were determined in the same manner as described above for actual emissions, except that emissions were scaled up according to the ratio of total PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48715 operating hours over actual operating hours. 3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risk from the source category addressed in this action were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3).7 The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.8 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 9 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by 7 For more information about HEM–3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 8 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 9 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 48716 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https:// oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoptionair-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidancemanual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutantspecific dose-response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/doseresponse-assessment-assessing-healthrisks-associated-exposure-hazardousair-pollutants. each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual’s incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP 10 emitted by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime. To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime’’ (https:// iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ termreg/searchandretrieve/glossaries andkeywordlists/search.do?details= &vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their doseresponse values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and the environment,11 we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019. To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point,12 reasonable 10 The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— an SAB Advisory, available at https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915B B04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf. 11 See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). 12 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.’’ 13 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.14 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 13 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 14 National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_ operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 15 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also 15 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG %20Committee%20Standard%20Operating %20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014 %20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014 %29.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48717 report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For this source category, we used the default acute multiplier of 10 to derive a conservative estimate of maximum hourly emissions from annual emissions. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we assess the sitespecific data to ensure we have assessed the acute HQ at an off-site location. For this source category, we did not have to perform any refined acute assessments. 4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). For the Lime Manufacturing source category, we identified PB–HAP emissions of arsenic, D/F, cadmium, mercury, and lead, so we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB– HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB–HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative list E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 48718 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/2013-08/ documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) The ratio of a facility’s actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ‘‘screening value.’’ We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these PB– HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB–HAP or combination of carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher/farmer scenario. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a USGS database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB–HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and the USGS lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption of fish 16) and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios 17). If PB–HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater than 1, we consider those PB– HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern. If the PB–HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement warranted, including validating that the impacted lakes are fishable, locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on chemical fate and transport (a timeseries analysis). If necessary, the EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific assessment. In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.18 Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are 16 Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 12:343–354. 17 U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 2011. 18 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite to protect public health and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other things, that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most susceptible group in the human population— children, including children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway assessment approach, see Appendix 6 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Lime Manufacturing source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Lime Manufacturing source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, D/F, HCl, cadmium, and mercury. Because one or more of the environmental HAP above are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. c. PB–HAP Methodology The environmental screening assessment includes six PB–HAP, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB–HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening assessment uses the same healthprotective conceptual model that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the emission rate in tons per year that results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission rate for each PB–HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 for that PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB–HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3. As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect. To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48719 animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: the size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km2; the percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI for 31 of the 35 modeled facilities. The remaining four facilities’ emissions data were collected using a combination of approaches, including using permit data and substituting emissions data from similar site(s) (refer to Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 48720 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action for further information). The source category records of the dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining records for that facility. The facilitywide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this action. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facilitywide risks. For this source category, the majority of the facility-wide dataset that the EPA compiled were from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ‘‘noncategory’’ data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this action. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facilitywide risks. 7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway sitespecific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on a default emission adjustment factor of 10 applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.19 That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.20 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach,21 which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect 19 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details= &glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 20 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. 21 See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48721 to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously. f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening Assessments For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB–HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 48722 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules from models—TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD—that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB–HAP (D/F, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.22 Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk assessments conducted in support of RTR. Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures. In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near 22 In the context of this discussion, the term ‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate the true result. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three tiers. For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts. Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, cadmium, D/F, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 onto soils and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? As described above, for the Lime Manufacturing source category we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a multipathway screening assessment for the PB–HAP emitted, and an environmental risk screening assessment for the PB–HAP and HCl emitted from the source category. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. 1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results The EPA estimated inhalation risk based on actual and allowable emissions. The estimated baseline maximum inhalation cancer risk (MIR) posed by the source category is 1-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 2-in-1 million based upon MACTallowable emissions. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 1,000 years. The total estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels is 0.003 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 333 years. Emissions of metals, aldehydes, and organic HAP from the lime kiln and cooler exhaust accounted for 93 percent to the cancer incidence. The estimated population exposed to cancer risk of 1in-1 million based upon actual emissions is 12 (see Table 2 of this preamble). The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for the source category E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48723 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules were estimated to be less than 1 (0.04) based on actual emissions and less than 1 (0.05) based upon allowable emissions. For both actual and allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by HCl, nickel compounds, and acrolein emissions from lime kiln and cooler exhaust. TABLE 2—INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR LIME MANUFACTURING 1 SOURCE CATEGORY [40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAAA] Maximum individual cancer risk (1-in-1 million) 3 Number of facilities 2 Risk assessment Baseline Actual Emissions: Source Category .................. Facility-Wide ........................ Baseline Allowable Emissions: Source Category .................. Estimated population at increased risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases per yr) Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 4 35 35 1 1 12 30 0.001 0.004 0.04 (respiratory) 0.4 (respiratory) .. 35 2 450 0.003 0.05 (respiratory) Maximum screening acute noncancer HQ 5 0.6 (REL) 1 Based on actual and allowable emissions. 2 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 35 operating facilities subject to subpart AAAAA. 3 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Lime Manufacturing source category is the respiratory system. 5 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1 hour dose-response value, the REL for elemental mercury. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results Based on our screening analysis of reasonable worst-case acute exposure to actual emissions from the category, no HAP exposures result in an HQ greater than 1 (0.6) based upon the 1- hour REL. As discussed in section III.C.3.c of this preamble, we used the default acute hourly multiplier of 10 for all emission processes. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results PB–HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from all 35 facilities in the source category exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for the carcinogenic PB– HAP, D/F, and arsenic. Emissions from 34 of the 35 facilities exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for mercury, a PB–HAP with noncancer health effects. Cadmium emissions from all but one facility were below the Tier 1 noncancer screening threshold emission rate. For the PB–HAP and facilities with Tier 1 screening values greater than 1, we conducted a Tier 2 screening analysis. D/F and arsenic emissions from 26 facilities exceeded the Tier 2 cancer screening value of 1. The Tier 2 fisher scenario resulted in a maximum cancer screening value of 20 with D/F emissions driving the risk. The Tier 2 farmer scenario resulted in a maximum cancer screening value of 20 due to both arsenic and D/F emissions. For cadmium, the Tier 2 noncancer screening value (0.1) did not exceed 1. Mercury emissions from 16 facilities had Tier 2 noncancer screening values greater than 1 under the fisher scenario, with the largest Tier 2 screen value VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 equal to 4. When we evaluated the effect multiple facilities within the source category could have on common lake(s) in the modeling domain, mercury emissions exceeded the noncancer screening value by a factor of 5. For mercury, we continued the fisher scenario screening analysis with a Tier 3 multipathway screen which comprises three individual stages. These stages included lake, plume rise, and timeseries assessments. Tier 3 lake and plume rise assessments weres conducted for all facilities with Tier 2 mercury screening values greater than 1. A Tier 3 time series screen was conducted for the facility with the highest mercury non-cancer screening value after conducting the lake and plume rise assessments. After conducting the time series screen, the facility evaluated had a Tier 3 noncancer screening value of 2 for mercury, including consideration of cumulative lake impacts from facilities within the source category. One of the facilities evaluated in the Tier 3 plume-rise screen for mercury also had the highest Tier 2 cancer screening value under the fisher scenario, 20 for D/F. The refined Tier 3 plume rise assessment for this facility resulted in a cancer screening value of 10. This cancer screening value of 10 for the fisher scenario is the highest for the source category. Further details on the Tier 3 screening analysis can be found in Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule. A screening value in any of the tiers is not an estimate of the cancer risk or PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For example, facility emissions resulting in a screening value of 2 for a noncarcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions resulting in a cancer screening value of 20 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower than 20-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the health-protective assumptions that are incorporated into the screens: We choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the screens and we assume food consumption behaviors that would lead to high total exposure. This risk assessment estimates the maximum hazard for mercury through fish consumption based on upper bound screens and the maximum excess cancer risks from D/F and arsenic through ingestion of fish and farm produce. When we progress from the model designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 screens to a site-specific assessment, we refine the risk assessment through incorporation of additional site-specific data and enhanced model designs. Sitespecific refinements include the following; (1) improved spatial locations identifying the boundaries of the watershed and lakes within the watershed as they relate to surrounding facilities within the source category; (2) calculating actual soil/water run-off amounts to target lakes based upon actual soil type(s) and elevation changes associated with the affected watershed versus assuming a worst-case E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48724 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 assumption of 100-percent run-off to target lakes; and (3) incorporating AERMOD deposition of pollutants into TRIM.FaTE to accurately account for site-specific release parameters such as stack heights and exit gas temperatures, versus using TRIMFaTE’s simple dispersion algorithms that assume the pollutant is uniformly distributed within the airshed. These refinements have the net effect of improved modeling of the mass of HAP entering a lake by more accurately defining the watershed/lake boundaries as well as the dispersion of HAP into the atmosphere to better reflect deposition contours across all target watersheds and lakes in our 50 km model domain. As discussed above, the maximum mercury Tier 2 non-cancer screening value for this source category is 5 with subsequent refinement resulting in a Tier 3 screening value of 2. The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to go beyond the Tier 3 assessment to a sitespecific assessment. As explained above, the screening value of 2 is a highend estimate of what the risk or hazard may be and can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Further, risk results from three site-specific mercury assessments the EPA has conducted for three RTR source categories resulted in noncancer HQs that were at least 50 times lower than the respective Tier 2 screening value for these facilities (refer to EPA Docket ID No.: 2017–HQ–OAR– 2017–0015 for a copy of these reports).23 Based on our review of these analyses, we would expect at least a one order of magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 noncancer screening values for mercury for the Lime Manufacturing source category, if we were to perform a sitespecific assessment. In addition, based upon the conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional refinements that would go into a sitespecific multipathway assessment, were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HI for ingestion exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1. Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can 23 EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and OilFired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 be found in Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 mg/m3, arithmetic mean concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead concentration, of 0.0007 mg/m3, is below the NAAQS level for lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Lime Manufacturing source category for the following pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, D/F, HCl, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB–HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, and POM emissions had no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. D/F emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at 31 facilities for a surface soil no-observed-adverseeffect-level (NOAEL) (mammalian insectivores—shrew) by a maximum screening value of 30. Divalent mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks: Sediment threshold level (one facility), surface soil threshold level—plant communities (25 facilities), and surface soil threshold level—invertebrate communities (32 facilities) by a maximum screening value of 20. Methyl mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks: Fish (avian/piscivores) NOAEL—Merganser (one facility), surface soil NOAEL for mammalian insectivores—shrew (13 facilities), and surface soil NOAEL for avian ground insectivores—woodcock (33 facilities) by a maximum screening value of 40. A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for D/F, divalent mercury, and methyl mercury emissions. In the Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated for any of the pollutants. For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 35 facilities, based on facility-wide emissions, is 1in-1 million (estimated for three facilities), with arsenic, chromium (VI) compounds, and nickel emissions from fugitive PSH operations driving the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from facility-wide emissions is 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 250 years. Approximately 30 people are estimated to have cancer risk equal to 1-in-1 million from facilitywide emissions. The maximum facilitywide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1 (0.4), mainly driven by emissions of HCl from a facility-wide fugitive area source. 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Lime Manufacturing source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.24 The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities. 24 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48725 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—LIME MANUFACTURING SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to lime manufacturing Source category Nationwide Total Population ........................................................................................................................... Population with chronic hazard index above 1 due to lime manufacturing 317,746,049 12 0 62 38 75 25 0 0 62 12 0.8 7 75 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 86 17 83 0 0 14 22 0 86 78 0 6 0 0 Race by Percent White ............................................................................................................................................ All Other Races ........................................................................................................................... Race by Percent Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... African American ......................................................................................................................... Native American .......................................................................................................................... Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... Income by Percent Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... Education by Percent Over 25 and without a High School Diploma .............................................................................. Over 25 and with a ...................................................................................................................... High School Diploma ................................................................................................................... Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated ................................................................................................................... jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 The results of the Lime Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 12 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population indicate that three of the 10 demographic groups (White, African American and people below the poverty level) that are living within 50 km of facilities in the source category exceed the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action. B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect? 1. Risk Acceptability As explained in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The EPA weighed all health risk measures and information, including science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties, in determining whether risk posed by emissions from the source category is acceptable. The maximum cancer risk for inhalation exposure to actual emissions from the Lime Manufacturing source category (1-in-1 million) is two orders of magnitude below 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable risk. The maximum inhalation cancer risk based on MACT allowable emissions (2-in-1 million) is similar. The EPA estimates emissions from the category would result in a cancer incidence of 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 1,000 years. Twelve individuals are estimated to have inhalation cancer risk equal to 1-in-1 million. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.04 based on actual emissions, 25 times below an exposure that the EPA has PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 estimated is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in an HQ greater than 1 (0.6) based upon the 1-hour REL. Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using healthprotective risk screening assumptions are below 10-in-1 million for the Tier 3 fisher scenario and below 20-in-1 million for the Tier 2 farmer exposure scenario. The Tier 3 noncancer screening analyses of mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum HQ for mercury would be less than 2, as explained in section III.C.4 of this preamble. The EPA is confident that this hazard estimate would be reduced to a HQ of less than 1 if further refined to incorporate enhanced site-specific analyses such as improved model boundary identification with improved soil/water run-off calculations and AERMOD deposition outputs used in the TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, as well as the uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose that the risks posed by emissions from the Lime E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48726 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Manufacturing source category are acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP from the source category. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any measures that would reduce risk further. Although we are proposing that the risks from this source category are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 12 people in the exposed population are equal to 1-in-1 million, caused by chromium (VI) compounds, arsenic, nickel, and cadmium emissions (see Table 2 of this preamble). Lime kiln and cooler exhaust emissions result in 93 percent of the cancer incidence for this source category. The NESHAP controls PM as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals. Our technology review did not identify any practices, controls, or process options that are being used in this industry that would result in further reduction of PM emissions.25 For D/F and mercury emissions, activated carbon injection (ACI) systems installed prior to the PM control device were identified as a potential control technology. We found that ACI systems have been used on municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and cement kilns. Experience with ACI on municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators led the EPA to develop emission limits for D/F emissions for these sources in the range of 0.26 to 2.5 nanograms as toxic equivalents per dry standard cubic meter (ng TEQ/dscm). These D/F emission levels are well above the D/F emission levels (0.008 to 0.0148 ng TEQ/dscm) that have been measured from lime kilns. Total annual costs for an ACI system, installed prior to the existing PM control device, are estimated to be $137,000 per lime kiln. Based on the cost and considering the 25 Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category; see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0015. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 potential negligible reduction of the already low measured D/F emissions, we do not consider the use of ACI systems to be cost effective for the industry to further reduce D/F emissions. The use of ACI systems would have little effect on the source category risks. As for mercury emissions, ACI is used on cement kilns which are similar to lime kilns in design, fuel combusted, and feed material. In the RTR conducted for the portland cement manufacturing industry, we estimated that for a typical cement kiln that the addition of an ACI system would result in a 2.3 to 3.0 lb per year reduction in mercury (see 82 FR 44277). Assuming a similar reduction in mercury emissions would be achieved for a typical lime kiln, the cost effectiveness of an ACI system installed prior to the PM control device would be $46,000 to $60,000 per lb of mercury removed. Thus, we do not consider the use of ACI systems to be cost effective for the industry to use to further reduce mercury emissions. Our risk analysis indicated the noncancer risks from mercury are low and any further risk reduction from the use of ACI would be minimal. Because no additional cost-effective measures were identified to further reduce HAP risk from affected sources in the Lime Manufacturing source category, we are proposing that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 3. Adverse Environmental Effect Based on the results of our environmental risk screening, we do not anticipate an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database online to locate applicable control technologies. We searched the RBLC database for RBL determinations made during the time period between this NESHAP promulgation date (January 05, 2004) and the date the RBLC search was conducted (August 27, 2018). Search results showed a total of 17 facilities with RBL determinations during the 2004–2018 time frame. These results were reviewed to identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies related to reducing PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emissions of PM from lime kilns and PSH operations. The primary controls identified were the use of fabric filters to control PM emissions from stacks and the use of water (wet suppression) for the control of PM emissions from fugitive PSH operations. These methods of control served as the basis for standards promulgated in the original NESHAP. The results of the RBLC search did not identify developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the Lime Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(6). To identify developments in emission control strategies, the following questions were asked as part of the January 2017 ICR: • Do you use any alternative control devices (i.e., control devices other than fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or wet scrubbers), monitoring procedures, or operating conditions at this facility? • Do you have any plans to install any new higher efficiency rated control devices or have any pending applications to add on any new controls? • Describe any procedures you use at your facility to prevent pollution (as opposed to controlling pollution after it is formed). • Have you implemented any work practice standards or standard operating procedures that will further reduce HAP emissions? The responses to this inquiry did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that would warrant revision to the existing emission standards for the Lime Manufacturing source category. This review did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for PM that have been implemented in this source category since promulgation of the current NESHAP in January of 2004. Consequently, we propose that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For a detailed discussion of the findings, refer to the Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category memorandum in the docket. D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic reporting of Notification of Compliance Status reports, semiannual compliance reports, and performance test reports. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. 1. SSM In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, which appears at 40 CFR 63.7100 and in Table 8 to subpart AAAAA of part 63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 8 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities regulated under the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. Deviations currently addressed by a facility’s SSM plan are required to be reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.7130). Facilities will no longer need to develop an SSM plan or keep it current (Table 8, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA). In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, is proposing alternate standards for those periods. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 48727 The EPA has made the determination under CAA section 112(h) that for kilns and coolers it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numeric standard during periods of startup and shutdown because the application of measurement methodology is impracticable due to technological and economic limitations. The test methods required for demonstrating compliance are required to be conducted under isokinetic conditions (i.e., steady-state conditions in terms of exhaust gas temperature, moisture, flow rate), which is difficult to achieve during periods of startup and shutdown where conditions are constantly changing. In addition, information 26 provided on the amount of time required for startup and shutdown of lime kilns indicates that the application of measurement methodology for these sources using the required procedures, which would require more hours (6) in startup or shutdown mode to satisfy the sample volume requirements in the rule, is impracticable. Upon review of this information, the EPA determined that it is not feasible to require stack testing, in particular, to complete the multiple required test runs during periods of startup and shutdown due to physical limitations and the short duration of startup and shutdown periods. Based on these specific facts for the Lime Manufacturing source category, we are proposing work practice standards for these periods. The EPA is proposing to require sources to vent emissions to the main stack and operate all control devices necessary to meet the normal operating limits under this NESHAP (with the exception of ESPs) when firing fuel in the lime kiln during startup and shutdown. We are proposing that startup ends 1 hour after lime is produced from the kiln. Stakeholders in several source categories have expressed concerns that the requirement for engaging applicable control devices does not accommodate potential safety problems associated with ESP operation. Recommended manufacturer operating procedures provided to the EPA during rulemaking for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP explained the potential hazards associated with ESP energization when unburned fuel may exist in the presence of oxygen levels high enough that the mixture can be in the flammable range. In addition, the stakeholders claim that the ESP cannot practically be engaged until a certain flue gas temperature is reached. Specifically, they claim that premature starting of this equipment will lead to short-term stability problems that could result in unsafe operations and longer term degradation of ESP performance due to fouling, increased chances of wire damage, or increased corrosion within the chambers. They also state that vendors providing this equipment incorporate these safety and operational concerns into their standard operating procedures. For example, they claim that some ESPs have oxygen sensors and alarms that shut down the ESP at high flue gas oxygen levels to avoid a fire in the unit. The oxygen level is typically high during startup, so the ESP may not engage due to these safety controls until more stable operating conditions are reached. These stakeholder claims are supported by a guidance document 27 prepared by a trade association of companies that supply air pollution control equipment. Therefore, the EPA is proposing an alternate work practice requirement for operating ESP control devices during periods of startup as follows: Lime kilns owners and operators shall, when firing fuel, vent emissions to the main stack and engage the ESP within 1 hour after the inlet exhaust temperature to the ESP reaches 300 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to clarify that the work practice does not supersede any other standard or requirements to which the affected source is subject, the EPA is including in the proposed alternate work practice provision a requirement that control devices operate when necessary to comply with other standards (e.g., new source performance standards, state regulations) applicable to the source. In addition, to ensure compliance with the proposed definition of startup and the work practice standard that applies during startup periods, we are proposing that certain events and parameters be monitored and recorded during the startup periods. These events include the time when firing (i.e., feeding) starts for fuel and limestone; the time when lime is produced; and the time when the PM controls are engaged. The parameters to be monitored and recorded during each startup period include the hourly flue gas temperature and all hourly average continuous monitoring system data (e.g., opacity, ESP total secondary electric power input, scrubber liquid flow rate) to 26 Lime Kiln Principles and Operations, Terry N. Adams, https://www.tappi.org/content/events/ 08Kros/manuscripts/2.2.pdf. 27 Guidance Document on Startup and Shutdown under MATS, Institute of Clean Air Companies, July 2015. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 48728 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules confirm that the control devices are engaged. We request comments on the proposed startup and shutdown provisions (definitions and work practices). Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2, definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, for example, Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999). ‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study’.’’. See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978), ‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-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 air pollution control device with 99percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a 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. Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because information was available to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80 FR 75178, 75211–14; December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA (830 F.3d 579, 606–610; D.C. Cir. 2016). a. General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 8) entry E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7100 that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.7100 does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.7100. We are also proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a ‘‘yes’’ in column 3. Finally, we are proposing to revise Table 8 to remove an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) because this paragraph is reserved and is not applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise Table 8 for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)–(3) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(f)(2)–(3) and adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1)–(2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2) and adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The current language of 40 CFR 93.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule to apply at all times. d. Performance Testing We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)–(4) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)–(4) and adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to revise the performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.7112 to remove the language ‘‘according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1)’’ because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restated the SSM exemption. 40 CFR 63.7112(c) of the current rule specifies that performance testing must not be conducted during periods of SSM. Section 63.7112(b) also specifies that the performance test be conducted under the specific conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. Operations during periods of SSM, and during periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative operating conditions. The current language in 40 CFR 63.7112(h) requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and the EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner and operator to include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ available to the Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text in PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48729 the current rule already makes explicit the requirement to record the information. e. Monitoring We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)–(3) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.8(c)(2)–(3) and adding entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary considering other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). f. Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1)–(b)(2)(xii) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) and adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.7132. When a source is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing language in 40 CFR 63.7132 requiring that sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must report the date, time, and duration of such periods. We are proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and include a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e). The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e) differs from the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e) applies to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.7132 a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48730 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise Table 8 by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.7132. We are proposing to revise Table 8 by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ‘‘no’’ in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. g. Reporting We are proposing to revise the Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.7131. The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must also VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan because plans would no longer be required. 2. Electronic Reporting Requirements Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, owners and operators of lime manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of required Notification of Compliance Status reports (portable document format (PDF), semiannual reports, and performance test reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0015. The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website 28 at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that other performance test results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI beginning 181 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A draft version of the proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.29 The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template. Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The first situation in which an extension may be warranted is due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8693(h). The second situation is due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8693(i). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 28 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 29 See 40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_AAAAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review_Semiannual_ Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015. E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA’s plan 30 to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 31 developed in response to the White House’s Digital Government Strategy.32 For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0015. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 3. Technical and Editorial Changes The following are additional proposed changes that address technical and editorial corrections: • Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.7113 to the provision that triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA–454/R–98–015. Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance; • Revising 40 CFR 63.7142 to add an alternative test method to EPA Method 320; 30 The EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov/documentD=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 31 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. 32 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 • Revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM Method D6735– 01; • Revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM Method D6420– 99; and • Revising Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, to add alternative compliance option. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after September 16, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), therefore, the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing affected sources, we are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that have been required to convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different timereporting parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48731 time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? There are currently 35 lime manufacturing facilities operating in the United States that are subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, affected source is the lime kiln and its associated cooler, and the PSH operation system located at a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source is a source that commenced construction after December 20, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and commenced reconstruction after December 20, 2002. B. What are the air quality impacts? At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are estimated to be approximately 2,320 tpy in 2019. This represents a reduction in HAP emissions of about 240 tpy due to the current (2004) Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. The proposed amendments will require all affected E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48732 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 sources subject to the emission standards in the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific emissions reduction associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the proposed work practice standards during SSM periods. Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this rulemaking. C. What are the cost impacts? The 35 lime manufacturing plants that would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the proposed work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown. Nationwide costs associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $14,355 following promulgation of the amendments. The EPA believes that the lime manufacturing plants which are subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed requirements with minimal additional capital or operational costs. For further information on the requirements being proposed, see section IV of this preamble. Each facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts. D. What are the economic impacts? Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a proposed rule. The total costs associated with reviewing the final rule, meeting the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and complying with the proposed work practice standards are estimated to be $14,355 following promulgation of the final rule. This is an estimated cost of $250 to $2750 per facility, depending on the number of lime kilns operated and the type of controls installed. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. Based on the costs associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption and the costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit compliance reports, we do not anticipate any significant economic impacts from these proposed amendments. E. What are the benefits? Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that they apply at all times. For facilities who choose to operate under an initial startup period, the EPA is proposing an alternative work practice standard that will ensure that facilities are minimizing emissions while the source operates under nonsteady state production, which will protect public health and the environment. Additionally, the proposed amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for more information. VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/limemanufacturing-plants-nationalemission-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0015 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air- E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules pollution/lime-manufacturing-plantsnational-emission-standards-hazardousair. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.06. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. We are proposing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP in the form of eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B— Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA). Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years, approximately 36 existing major sources will be subject to these standards. It is also estimated that one additional respondent will become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 9,690 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is estimated to be $1,400,000 (per year), of which $14,355 (first year) is for this proposal, and the rest is for other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAP including $338,000 in annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than October 16, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. This action only proposes to eliminate the startup/ shutdown exemption and add electronic reporting. Neither of the changes being proposed will impact the small entities. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48733 The proposal to remove the startup/ shutdown exemption will include proposing a work practice standard for those periods. Based on the controls used at the small entities, they will not be impacted by the proposed work practices. Thus, this action will not impose any requirements on small entities. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48734 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B manual portion only and not the instrumental portion. This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. This standard may be obtained from https://www.asme.org or from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at Three Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016– 5990. The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348–12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transforn (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ as an alternative to using EPA Method 320 under certain conditions and incorporate this alternative by reference. ASTM D6348– 03(2010) was previously determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348–12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348–03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348–03(2010) version. The voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transforn (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348– 12e1, the conditions that must be met are defined in 40 CFR 63.7142(a)(2). This field test method employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. The ASTM D6348–12el standard was developed and adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,’’ as an alternative to EPA Method 321 provided that the provisions in 40 CFR 63.7142(a)(4) are followed. The EPA used ASTM D6735–01 for the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 determination of HCl in EPA Methods 26, 26A, and 321 from mineral calcining exhaust sources. This method will measure the gaseous hydrochloric acid and other gaseous chlorides and flurides that passes through a particulate matter filter. The ASTM D6735–01 standard was developed and adopted by the ASTM. The EPA proposes to use VCS ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), ‘‘Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry’’ as an alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target compunds are all known, and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 should not be used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. This field method determines the mass concentration of volatile organic hazardous air pollutants. The ASTM standards may be obtained from https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428–2959. The EPA proposes to use EPA–454/R– 98–015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997 as guidance for how a triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained. This document includes fabric filter and monitoring system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, set up, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.This document may be obtained from https:// www.epa.gov of from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. While the EPA has identified another 10 VCS as being potentially applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Lime Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these determinations. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule or any amendments. K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the docket for this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Lime kilns, Lime manufacturing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 19, 2019. Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63–NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continuous to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2), and revising paragraphs (h)(85), (h)(91), (h)(96), and (n)(3) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporation by reference. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart AAAAA. * * * * * (h) * * * (85) ASTM D6348–12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for §§ 63.1571(a) and 63.7142(a) and (b). * * * * * (91) ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for §§ 63.670(j), 63.7142(b), and appendix A to this part: Method 325B. * * * * * (96) ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, IBR approved for § 63.7142(a), tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK. * * * * * (n) * * * (3) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR approved for §§ 63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7113(d), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f). Subpart AAAAA—[Amended] 3. Section 63.7083 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: ■ jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) * * * (1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004, you must comply with the emission limitations no later than January 5, 2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. (2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004, then you must comply with the emission limitations for new affected sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after startup, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than January VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 5, 2007, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. * * * * * (e)(1) If the start up of your existing, new, or reconstructed source occurs on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then the compliance date for the revised requirements promulgated at §§ 63.7090, 63.7100, 63.7112, 63.7113, 63.7121, 63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 63.7142, and 63.7143 and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of 40 CFR 63, subpart AAAAA, published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for both new and existing sources is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. (2) If the initial start up of your new or reconstructed source occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then the compliance date for the revised requirements promulgated at §§ 63.7090, 63.7100, 63.7112, 63.7113, 63.7121, 63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 63.7142, and 63.7143 and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of 40 CFR 63, subpart AAAAA, published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or the date of startup, whichever is later. ■ 4. Section 63.7090 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.7090 meet? What emission limitations must I * * * * * (c) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], during periods of startup and shutdown you must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) During startup you must fire your kiln with any one or combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), or ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. (2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. (3) Kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a fabric filter (FF) must comply with the opacity operating limit in Table 2 in lieu of the particulate (PM) emission limits. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48735 (4) Kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a wet scrubber must meet the scrubber liquid flow rate operating limit in Table 2 in lieu of the PM emission limits. (5) For kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), the ESP must be turned on and operating at the time the gas stream at the inlet to the ESP reaches 300 degrees Fahrenheit (five-minute average) during startup. Temperature of the gas stream is to be measured at the inlet of the ESP every minute. (6) You must keep records as specified in § 63.7132 during periods of startup and shutdown. ■ 5. Section 63.7100 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d)(3), (d)(4)(iii), and (e) to read as follows: § 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations (including operating limits and work practices) at all times. (b) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the opacity and visible emission (VE) limits in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the applicable opacity and VE limits (including work practices) at all times. (c) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48736 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (d) * * * (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, respectively. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], your OM&M plan must address periods of startup and shutdown. (4) * * * (iii) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (3), and (4)(ii). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of paragraph (c) of this section and §§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (3), and (4)(ii); and * * * * * (e) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). ■ 6. Section 63.7112 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (k)(3), paragraph (l) introductory text, and adding paragraph (m). § 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? * * * * * (b) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], each performance test must be conducted based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (c) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], during startup and shutdown, you must follow the requirements in § 63.7090(c). * * * * * (k) * * * (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter, but must meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter. (l) When determining compliance with the opacity standards for fugitive emissions from PSH operations in item 8 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A– 4 to part 60 of this chapter according to item 17 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section. * * * * * (m) After to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, the run average temperature must be calculated for each run, and the average of the run average temperatures must be determined and included in the performance test report and will be used to determine compliance with § 63.7090(c)(5). ■ 7. Section 63.7113 is amended by: PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (d); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3) through (8) as paragraphs (d)(4) through (9); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (d)(3); ■ d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(7), the introductory text to newly redesignated paragraph (d)(8), and newly redesignated paragraph (d)(9); and ■ e. Adding paragraphs (d)(10) and (h). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? * * * * * (d) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1) through (9) of this section. * * * * * (3) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. * * * * * (7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA–454/R– 98–015, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained according to the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the OM&M plan. (8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways, according to section 5.0 of the EPA–454/R–98–015, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14): * * * * * (9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified in the OM&M plan required by § 63.7100(d). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a complete FF inspection that demonstrates that the FF is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the EPA–454/ R–98–015, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). Record each adjustment. E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules (10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. * * * * * (h) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, you must demonstrate compliance with the startup requirements in § 63.7090(c)(5) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases at the inlet to, or upstream of, the ESP. (2) The temperature recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the average temperature established during your performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7112(m). (3) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator. (4) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature sensors must be verified at least once every three months. (5) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and cooler, if applicable, at the inlet to the kiln and/or cooler ESP. ■ 8. Section 63.7121 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows: determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.7130 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory text to read as follows: § 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations standard? * jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.7131. * * * * * (d) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN Federal Register], consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 § 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when? * * * * * (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent Notification of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in § 63.7131(h). * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.7131 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text. ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(6). ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6). ■ d. Revising paragraphs (d), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2). ■ e. Adding paragraph (e)(12) ■ f. Revising paragraph (f). ■ g. Adding paragraphs (g) through (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.7131 when? What reports must I submit and * * * * (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 specified in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section: * * * * * (6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent compliance reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section. (c) * * * (4) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48737 (5) If there were no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) that apply to you, the compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring systems (CMS), including CPMS, were out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS were out-of-control during the reporting period. (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (d)(1) and (2) of this section. The deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in § 63.10(d) prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and the requirements in § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. (1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the reporting period. (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), and the corrective action taken. (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (11) of this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] the semiannual compliance report must also include the information included in paragraph (e)(12) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 48738 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. * * * * * (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by §§ 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by §§ 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit and work practice), submission of the compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority. (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (h) Performance Tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test. The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI. (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of the information submitted under paragraph (i) of this section is CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/ OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (i) of this section. (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. (2) The outage must have occured within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due. (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned. (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying: (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. (j) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting. (3) You must provide to the Administrator: (i) A written description of the force majeure event; (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. ■ 11. Section 63.7132 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.7132 What records must I keep? (a) * * * (2) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the records in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each startup and/ or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard applicable at other times. (ii) You must keep records of the date, time, cause and duration of each malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the date, time, cause, and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 (iii) For kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, the average of the run average temperatures determined in accordance with § 63.7112(m) must be recorded. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.7133 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.7133 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? * * * * * (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 13. Section 63.7140 is revised to read as follows: § 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. When there is overlap between 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, as indicated in the ‘‘Explanations’’ column in Table 8, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA takes precedence. ■ 14. Section 63.7141 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text. ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) as paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(7). ■ c. Adding new paragraph (c)(4). ■ d. Adding paragraph (c)(8). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart? * * * * * (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section. * * * * * (4) Approval of alternatives to the work practices in § 63.7090(c). * * * * * (8) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. ■ 15. Section 63.7142 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (4); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2); ■ d. Revising newly designated paragraph (a)(4) introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(4)(i), and (a)(4)(v); PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 48739 e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4); ■ f. Adding new paragraph (b)(2); and ■ g. Revising newly designated paragraphs (b)(3) and (4). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status? (a) * * * (1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or (2) As an alternative to EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348–12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section are followed: (i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory. (ii) In ASTM D6348–12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/ or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)) / (%R) × 100; or * * * * * (4) As an alternative to EPA Method 321, ASTM Method D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), provided that the provisions in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section are followed. (i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section 11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009). * * * * * (v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM Method D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) is conducted, and the percent recovery is E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48740 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules calculated according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009). * * * * * (b) * * * (2) As an alternative to Method 320, ASTM D6348–12e1, Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section are followed: (i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348–12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory. (ii) In ASTM D6348–12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/ or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)) / (%R) × 100; (3) Method 18 of appendix A–6 to part 60 of this chapter; or (4) As an alternative to Method 18, ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas ChromatographyMass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section are followed: (i) The target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420–99 (Reapproved 2010) as measurable; (ii) This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because their atomic mass is less than 35; and (iii) ASTM D6420 (Reapproved 2010) should never be specified as a total VOC. * * * * * ■ 16. Section 63.7143 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (3) under the definition of ‘‘Deviation.’’ ■ b. Revising the definition of ‘‘Emission limitation.’’ ■ c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ‘‘Shutdown’’ and ‘‘Startup.’’ The revisions read as follows: § 63.7143 subpart? * * What definitions apply to this * * * Deviation * * * * * * * * (3) Prior to [Date 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating limit or work practice) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is allowed by this subpart. Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, operating limit, work practice, or VE limit. * * * * * Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation ceases. * * * * * Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first begins firing fuel. Startup begins when a shutdown kiln turns on the induced draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. Startup ends 60 minutes after the lime kiln generates lime product. * * * * * ■ 17. Table 1 to subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS As required in § 63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you. For . . . You must meet the following emission limit 1. Existing lime kilns and their associated lime coolers that did not have a wet scrubber installed and operating prior to January 5, 2004. 2. Existing lime kilns and their associated lime coolers that have a wet scrubber, where the scrubber itself was installed and operating prior to January 5, 2004. PM emissions must not exceed 0.12 pounds per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf). jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 3. New lime kilns and their associated lime coolers ......... 4. All existing and new lime kilns and their associated coolers at your LMP, and you choose to average PM emissions, except that any kiln that is allowed to meet the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit is ineligible for averaging. 5. All new and existing lime kilns and their associated coolers during startup and shutdown. 6. Stack emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source. 7. Stack emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. 8. Fugitive emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source, except as provided by item 9 of this Table 1. 9. All PSH operations at a new or existing affected source enclosed in a building. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 PM emissions must not exceed 0.60 lb/tsf. If, at any time after January 5, 2004, the kiln changes to a dry control system, then the PM emission limit in item 1 of this Table 1 applies, and the kiln is hereafter ineligible for the PM emission limit in item 2 of this Table 1 regardless of the method of PM control. PM emissions must not exceed 0.10 lb/tsf. Weighted average PM emissions calculated according to Eq. 2 in § 63.7112 must not exceed 0.12 lb/tsf (if you are averaging only existing kilns) or 0.10 lb/tsf (if you are averaging only new kilns). If you are averaging existing and new kilns, your weighted average PM emissions must not exceed the weighted average emission limit calculated according to Eq. 3 in § 63.7112, except that no new kiln and its associated cooler considered alone may exceed an average PM emissions limit of 0.10 lb/tsf. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], work practices in § 63.7090(c). PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm). Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity. All of the individually affected PSH operations must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations in items 6 through 8 of this Table 1, or the building must comply with the following: There must be no VE from the building, except from a vent; and vent emissions must not exceed the stack emissions limitations in items 6 and 7 of this Table 1. Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48741 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS—Continued As required in § 63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you. For . . . You must meet the following emission limit 10. Each FF that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed storage bin. 11. Each set of multiple storage bins at a new or existing affected source, with combined stack emissions. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity. You must comply with the emission limits in items 6 and 7 of this Table 1. 18. Table 2 of subpart AAAAA is amended by adding an entry for ‘‘7’’ to read as follows: ■ TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS As required in § 63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you. For . . . You must . . . * * * * * * * 7. During startup and shutdown, each lime kiln and each lime cooler (if After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated RULE IN THE Federal Register], meet the work practice requirelime cooler) subject to an emission limit that is equipped with an addments in § 63.7090(c). on air pollution control device. 19. Revise Table 4 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows: ■ jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS As required in § 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you. For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 2. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 3. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 4. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Select the location of the sampling port and the number of traverse ports. Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter; and § 63.6(d)(1)(i). Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device(s) and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. You may use ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (2010)—Part 10 a as an alternative to using the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) in Method 3B. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48742 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued As required in § 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you. For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 5. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler, and which uses a negative pressure PM control device. Measure PM emissions. Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 6. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler, and which uses a positive pressure FF or ESP. Measure PM emissions. Method 5D in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 7. Each lime kiln .......... Determine the mass rate of stone feed to the kiln during the kiln PM emissions test. Establish the operating limit for the average gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber. Any suitable device ......................................... 9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. Establish the operating limit for the average liquid flow rate to the scrubber. Data from the liquid flow rate measurement device during the kiln PM performance test. 10. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF or ESP that is monitored with a PM detector. 11. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF or ESP that is monitored with a COMS. Have installed and have operating the BLDS or PM detector prior to the performance test. Have installed and have operating the COMS prior to the performance test. Standard operating procedures incorporated into the OM&M plan. Conduct the test(s) when the source is operating at representative operating conditions in accordance with § 63.7(e) before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and § 63.7112(b) after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]; the minimum sampling volume must be 0.85 dry standard cubic meter (dscm) (30 dry standard cubic foot (dscf)); if there is a separate lime cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, you must conduct the Method 5 test of the cooler exhaust concurrently with the kiln exhaust test. Conduct the test(s) when the source is operating at representative operating conditions in accordance with § 63.7(e) [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] and § 63.7112(b) after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]; if there is a separate lime cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, you must conduct the Method 5 test of the separate cooler exhaust concurrently with the kiln exhaust test. Calibrate and maintain the device according to manufacturer’s instructions; the measuring device used must be accurate to within ±5 percent of the mass rate of stone feed over its operating range. The continuous pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the pressure drop data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). The continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the flow rate data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). According to the requirements in § 63.7113(d) or (e), respectively. 12. Each stack emission from a PSH operation, vent from a building enclosing a PSH operation, or set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, which is subject to a PM emission limit. Measure PM emissions. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 Data for the gas stream pressure drop measurement device during the kiln PM performance test. Standard operating procedures incorporated into the OM&M plan and as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS–1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, except as specified in § 63.7113(g)(2). Method 5 or Method 17 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 According to § 63.7113(g). the requirements in The sample volume must be at least 1.70 dscm (60 dscf); for Method 5, if the gas stream being sampled is at ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated without heaters; and if the gas stream is above ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated at a temperature high enough, but no higher than 121 °C (250 °F), to prevent water condensation on the filter (Method 17 may be used only with exhaust gas temperatures of not more than 250 °F). E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48743 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued As required in § 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you. For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 13. Each stack emission from a PSH operation, vent from a building enclosing a PSH operation, or set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, which is subject to an opacity limit. 14. Each stack emissions source from a PSH operation subject to a PM or opacity limit, which uses a wet scrubber. 15. Each stack emissions source from a PSH operation subject to a PM or opacity limit, which uses a wet scrubber. 16. Each FF that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed, new or existing storage bin. 17. Fugitive emissions from any PSH operation subject to an opacity limit. Conduct opacity observations. Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The test duration must be for at least 3 hours and you must obtain at least thirty, 6minute averages. Establish the average gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber. Data for the gas stream pressure drop measurement device during the PSH operation stack PM performance test. Establish the operating limit for the average liquid flow rate to the scrubber. Data from the liquid flow rate measurement device during the PSH operation stack PM performance test. Conduct opacity observations. Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the pressure drop data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). The continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the flow rate data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). The test duration must be for at least 1 hour and you must obtain ten 6-minute averages. Conduct opacity observations. Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 18. Each building enclosing any PSH operation, that is subject to a VE limit. Conduct VE check ..... The specifications in § 63.7112(k) .................. a Incorporated The test duration must be for at least 3 hours, but the 3-hour test may be reduced to 1 hour if, during the first 1-hour period, there are no individual readings greater than 10 percent opacity and there are no more than three readings of 10 percent during the first 1-hour period. The performance test must be conducted while all affected PSH operations within the building are operating; the performance test for each affected building must be at least 75 minutes, with each side of the building and roof being observed for at least 15 minutes. by reference, see § 63.14. 20. Table 7 of subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 7 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 As required in § 63.7131, you must submit each report in this table that applies to you. You must submit a . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report ........................................................ a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) that applies to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period;. b. If there were no periods during which the CMS, including any operating parameter monitoring system, was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period;. c. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in § 63.7131(d);. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). 48744 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS—Continued As required in § 63.7131, you must submit each report in this table that applies to you. You must submit a . . . 2. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP. 3. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP. (4) Performance Test Report ............................................ The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . d. If there were periods during which the CMS, including any operating parameter monitoring system, was out-of-control, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain the information in § 63.7131(e); and. e. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you failed to meet an applicable standard, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.7131(c)(3).. Actions taken for the event ............................................. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .................................. The information required in § 63.7(g) .............................. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the SSMP. By letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority. See § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). According to the requirements of § 63.7131 20. Table 8 of subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows: ■ jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement? § 63.1(a)(1)–(4) ....... § 63.1(a)(5) .............. § 63.1(a)(6) .............. § 63.1(a)(7)–(a)(9) ... § 63.1(a)(10)–(a)(14) § 63.1(b)(1) .............. Applicability .......................................... ............................................................... Applicability .......................................... ............................................................... Applicability .......................................... Initial Applicability Determination ......... Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes ....................................................... § 63.1(b)(2) .............. § 63.1(b)(3) .............. § 63.1(c)(1) .............. No. Yes. Yes. § 63.1(c)(2) .............. ............................................................... Initial Applicability Determination ......... Applicability After Standard Established. Permit Requirements ........................... § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ........ § 63.1(c)(5) .............. § 63.1(d) .................. § 63.1(e) .................. § 63.2 ....................... § 63.3(a)–(c) ............ § 63.4(a)(1)–(a)(2) ... § 63.4(a)(3)–(a)(5) ... § 63.4(b)–(c) ............ § 63.5(a)(1)–(2) ....... § 63.5(b)(1) .............. ............................................................... Area Source Becomes Major ............... ............................................................... Applicability of Permit Program ............ Definitions ............................................. Units and Abbreviations ....................... Prohibited Activities .............................. ............................................................... Circumvention, Severability .................. Construction/Reconstruction ................ Compliance Dates ................................ No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes ....................................................... Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 No ......................................................... Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM Explanations §§ 63.7081 and 63.7142 specify additional applicability determination requirements. Area sources not subject to subpart AAAAA, except all sources must make initial applicability determination. Additional definitions in § 63.7143. 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48745 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA—Continued As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Summary of requirement § 63.5(b)(2) .............. § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ....... § 63.5(b)(5) .............. § 63.5(b)(6) .............. § 63.5(c) .................. § 63.5(d)(1)–(4) ....... ............................................................... Construction Approval, Applicability ..... ............................................................... Applicability .......................................... ............................................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Compliance for Standards and Maintenance. Compliance Dates ................................ ............................................................... Compliance Dates ................................ Compliance Dates ................................ ............................................................... Compliance Dates ................................ ............................................................... General Duty to Minimize Emissions ... § 63.5(e) .................. § 63.5(f)(1)–(2) ........ § 63.6(a) .................. jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.6(b)(1)–(5) ....... § 63.6(b)(6) .............. § 63.6(b)(7) .............. § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ........ § 63.6(c)(3)–(c)(4) ... § 63.6(c)(5) .............. § 63.6(d) .................. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ........... Am I subject to this requirement? No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .......... Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ......... § 63.6(e)(2) .............. § 63.6(e)(3) .............. Operation and Maintenance Requirements. ............................................................... Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan .... § 63.6(f)(1) ............... SSM exemption .................................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ........ § 63.6(g)(1)–(g)(3) ... § 63.6(h)(1) .............. Methods for Determining Compliance .. Alternative Standard ............................. SSM exemption .................................... § 63.6(h)(2) .............. § 63.6(h)(3) .............. § 63.6(h)(4)–(h)(5)(i) Methods for Determining Compliance .. ............................................................... Opacity/VE Standards .......................... No ......................................................... Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. No. Yes ....................................................... § 63.6(h)(5) (ii)–(iii) .. Opacity/VE Standards .......................... No ......................................................... § 63.6(h)(5)(iv) ......... § 63.6(h)(5)(v) .......... § 63.6(h)(6) .............. § 63.6(h)(7) .............. § 63.6(h)(8) .............. § 63.6(h)(9) .............. § 63.6(i)(1)–(i)(14) ... Opacity/VE Standards .......................... Opacity/VE Standards .......................... Opacity/VE Standards .......................... COM Use ............................................. Compliance with Opacity and VE ........ Adjustment of Opacity Limit ................. Extension of Compliance ..................... No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Explanations Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], see § 63.7100 for general duty requirement. [Reserved] After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the OM&M plan must address periods of startup and shutdown. See § 63.7100(d). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for periods of startup and shutdown, see § 63.7090(c). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], for periods of startup and shutdown, see § 63.7090(c). This requirement only applies to opacity and VE performance checks required in Table 4 to subpart AAAAA. Test durations are specified in subpart AAAAA; subpart AAAAA takes precedence. 16SEP2 48746 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA—Continued As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement? § 63.6(i)(15) ............. § 63.6(i)(16) ............. § 63.6(j) ................... § 63.7(a)(1)–(a)(3) ... ............................................................... Extension of Compliance ..................... Exemption from Compliance ................ Performance Testing Requirements .... No. Yes. Yes. Yes ....................................................... § 63.7(b) .................. § 63.7(c) .................. § 63.7(d) .................. § 63.7(e)(1) .............. Notification ............................................ Quality Assurance/Test Plan ................ Testing Facilities .................................. Conduct of Tests .................................. § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) ....... § 63.7(f) ................... § 63.7(g) .................. § 63.7(h) .................. § 63.8(a)(1) .............. § 63.8(a)(2) .............. § 63.8(a)(3) .............. § 63.8(a)(4) .............. § 63.8(b)(1)–(3) ....... § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ........... Conduct of Tests .................................. Alternative Test Method ....................... Data Analysis ....................................... Waiver of Tests .................................... Monitoring Requirements ..................... Monitoring ............................................. ............................................................... Monitoring ............................................. Conduct of Monitoring .......................... CMS Operation/Maintenance ............... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .......... § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ......... CMS Spare Parts ................................. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS. § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ........ § 63.8(c)(4) .............. § 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii) ..... CMS Operation/Maintenance ............... CMS Requirements .............................. Cycle Time for COM and CEMS .......... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ....................................................... Yes. No. No ......................................................... Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. No ......................................................... Yes ....................................................... § 63.8(c)(5) .............. § 63.8(c)(6) .............. § 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ........ § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ....... § 63.8(d)(3) .............. Minimum COM procedures .................. CMS Requirements .............................. CMS Requirements .............................. Quality Control ..................................... Quality Control ..................................... § 63.8(e) .................. § 63.8(f)(1)–(f)(5) ..... § 63.8(f)(6) ............... Performance Evaluation for CMS ........ Alternative Monitoring Method ............. Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test for CEMS. Data Reduction; Data That Cannot Be Used. Notification Requirements Initial Notifications ................................ Request for Compliance Extension ..... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements. Notification of Performance Test Notification of VE/Opacity Test ............ jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.8(g)(1)–(g)(5) ... § 63.9(a) § 63.9(b) § 63.9(c) § 63.9(d) .................. .................. .................. .................. § 63.9(e) .................. § 63.9(f) ................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Yes ....................................................... No ......................................................... Yes. Yes ....................................................... Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. No ......................................................... No ......................................................... Yes. ...................................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ....................................................... Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM Explanations § 63.7110 specifies deadlines; § 63.7112 has additional specific requirements. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], see § 63.7112(b). See § 63.7113. Flares not applicable. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], see § 63.7100 for OM&M requirements. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], no longer required. See § 63.7121. No CEMS are required under subpart AAAAA; see § 63.7113 for CPMS requirements. COM not required. See § 63.7113. See also § 63.7113. See also § 63.7113 No CEMS required in subpart AAAAA. See data reduction requirements in §§ 63.7120 and 63.7121. See § 63.7130. This requirement only applies to opacity and VE performance tests required in Table 4 to subpart AAAAA. Notification not required for VE/ opacity test under Table 6 to subpart AAAAA. 16SEP2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules 48747 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA—Continued As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement? Explanations § 63.9(g) .................. Additional CMS Notifications ................ No ......................................................... Not required for operating parameter monitoring. § 63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3) ... § 63.9(h)(4) .............. § 63.9(h)(5)–(h)(6) ... § 63.9(i) ................... § 63.9(j) ................... § 63.10(a) ................ Notification of Compliance Status ........ ............................................................... Notification of Compliance Status ........ Adjustment of Deadlines ...................... Change in Previous Information .......... Recordkeeping/Reporting General Requirements. Records ................................................ Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ....................................................... jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.10(b)(1) ............ § 63.10 (b)(2)(i) ....... § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ........ Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Standard. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ....... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) Maintenance Records .......................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xii) § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ..... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ..... § 63.10(b)(3) ............ § 63.10(c) ................ § 63.10(d)(1) ............ § 63.10(d)(2) ............ § 63.10(d)(3) ............ Recordkeeping for CMS ....................... Records for Relative Accuracy Test .... Records for Notification ........................ Applicability Determinations ................. Additional CMS Recordkeeping ........... General Reporting Requirements ........ Performance Test Results ................... Opacity or VE Observations ................ § 63.10(d)(4) ............ § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ......... Progress Reports ................................. Periodic Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports. § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ........ Immediate Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports. § 63.10(e) ................ Additional CMS Reports ....................... § 63.10(f) ................. § 63.11(a)–(b) .......... Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting ... Control Device and Work Practice Requirements. State Authority and Delegations .......... State/Regional Addresses .................... Incorporation by Reference .................. Availability of Information and Confidentiality. Performance Track Provisions ............. § 63.12(a)–(c) § 63.13(a)–(c) § 63.14(a)–(b) § 63.15(a)–(b) .......... .......... .......... .......... § 63.16 ..................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No ......................................................... Yes. Yes. Yes ....................................................... Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No ......................................................... Yes. No ......................................................... See §§ 63.7131 through 63.7133. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], see § 63.7132 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], see § 63.7100 for OM&M requirements. See § 63.7132. For the periodic monitoring requirements in Table 6 to subpart AAAAA, report according to § 63.10(d)(3) only if VE observed and subsequent visual opacity test is required. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], see § 63.7131 for malfunction reporting requirements. See specific requirements in subpart AAAAA, see § 63.7131. Flares not applicable. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2 48748 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / Proposed Rules [FR Doc. 2019–18485 Filed 9–13–19; 8:45 am] jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Sep 13, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\16SEP2.SGM 16SEP2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48708-48748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18485]



[[Page 48707]]

Vol. 84

Monday,

No. 179

September 16, 2019

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 179 / Monday, September 16, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 48708]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-9998-85-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT08


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the 
results of the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) for the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 
Lime Manufacturing Plants. We are proposing to find that risks due to 
emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and 
that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. Under the technology review, we are proposing to find 
that there are no developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies that necessitate revision of the standards. We are 
proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction (SSM) and to add provisions regarding electronic 
reporting.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the 
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your 
comments on or before October 16, 2019.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before September 23, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional 
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0015, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5426; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health 
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For 
questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Mike 
Ciolek, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-4921; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: 
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the 
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. Please contact Adrian Gates at (919) 541-4860 or by 
email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to register 
to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public 
hearing will be held.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. All documents in the docket are 
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For

[[Page 48709]]

additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly 
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions 
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain 
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does 
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the 
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior 
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
g/dscm grams per dry standard cubic meter
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
lb/tsf pounds per ton of stone feed
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PSH processed stone handling system
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51

[[Page 48710]]

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to 
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As 
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, 
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Lime 
Manufacturing source category is any facility engaged in producing high 
calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite. However, lime 
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar 
factories are not included in the source category (see 69 FR 397, 
January 5, 2004).

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Source category                NESHAP          NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Manufacturing..............  Lime Manufacturing       32741, 33111,
                                   Plants.                  3314, 327125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the Federal Register, 
the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key 
technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall 
RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 
process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves 
establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves 
evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed 
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This 
second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' 
In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA 
to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to 
determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into the 
standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology 
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, 
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The 
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections 
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement 
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears 
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: 
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based 
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly 
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a 
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' 
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than 
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly 
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as 
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards 
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission 
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA 
discretion to set standards based on generally available control 
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT 
standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards, 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The

[[Page 48711]]

EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to 
use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual 
risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14, 
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions 
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without 
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA 
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health 
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being 
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After 
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a 
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

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

    The NESHAP for the Lime Manufacturing source category was 
promulgated on January 5, 2004 (69 FR 394), and codified at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart AAAAA. As promulgated in 2004, the NESHAP regulates HAP 
emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are 
major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major 
sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper 
mills or at beet sugar factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Other 
captive lime manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those 
at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to the 
NESHAP. See 67 FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations. 
A lime manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime 
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous 
material by calcination. However, the NESHAP specifically excludes lime 
kilns that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening 
processes as the feedstock. Lime product means the product of the lime 
kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and 
dead-burned dolomite.
    The NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: Each lime kiln 
and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling 
(PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes all 
equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process stone 
storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the process 
stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage 
bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system 
transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening 
operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. The 
materials processing operations associated with lime products (such as 
quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust handling, quarry or mining 
operations, limestone sizing operations, and fuels are not subject to 
the NESHAP. Processed stone handling operations are further 
distinguished in the NESHAP as: (1) Whether their emissions are vented 
through a stack, (2) whether their emissions are fugitive emissions, 
(3) whether their emissions are vented through a stack with some 
fugitive emissions from the partial enclosure, and/or (4) whether the 
source is enclosed in a building. Finally, lime hydrators and cooler 
nuisance dust collectors are not included under the definition of 
affected source under the NESHAP.
    The NESHAP established particulate matter (PM) emission limits for 
lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. Particulate matter 
is measured solely as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP. The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible 
emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also serving as 
a surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals.
    The PM emission limit for the existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 
pounds PM per ton of stone feed (lb PM/tsf) for kilns using dry air 
pollution control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that 
have installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 
2004, must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb PM/tsf. Kilns which meet 
the criteria for the 0.60 lb PM/tsf emission limit must continue to use 
a wet scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet 
the 0.60 lb PM/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry 
control, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb PM/tsf emission 
limit, regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The 
PM emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb PM/tsf. 
As a compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb 
PM/tsf limit) may be applied to the combined emissions of all the kilns 
and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing 
plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission 
limit would be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions 
limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the 
individual kilns, except that no new kiln may exceed the PM emission 
level of 0.10 lb PM/tsf. Kilns that are required to meet a 0.60 lb PM/
tsf emission limit must meet that limit individually, and may not be 
included in any averaging calculations. Emissions from PSH operations 
that are vented through a stack are subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM 
per dry standard cubic meter (g PM/dscm) and 7-percent opacity. Stack 
emissions from PSH operations that are controlled by wet scrubbers are 
subject to the 0.05 g PM/

[[Page 48712]]

dscm limit but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions 
from PSH operations are subject to a 10-percent opacity limit.
    For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected 
PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the 
applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must 
be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the 
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7-percent 
opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an 
individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not 
exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins 
with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm 
and 7-percent opacity. The final rule does not allow averaging of PSH 
operations.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    During the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA 
collected information on the emissions, operations, and location of 
lime manufacturing plants. Since this information was collected prior 
to the 2004 promulgation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, the EPA 
prepared a questionnaire in 2017 in order to collect current 
information on the location and number of lime kilns, types and 
quantities of emissions, annual operating hours, types and quantities 
of fuels burned, and information on air pollution control devices and 
emission points. Nine companies completed the 2017 questionnaire for 
which they reported data for 32 of 35 major source facilities. The EPA 
used data from the 2017 questionnaires to develop the dataset for the 
NESHAP risk assessment.
    The list of facilities that are subject to the NESHAP was developed 
using the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) 
database, the 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI 2014) and the U.S. 
Geological Survey's (USGS's) Directory of Lime Plants and Hydration 
Plants in the United States in 2014. The list of facilities, as well as 
which companies would receive the questionnaire, was reviewed by the 
industry trade association. The final risk modeling datafile included 
all 35 major source facilities.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    In addition to the ECHO and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed the 
additional information sources listed below and consulted with 
stakeholders regulated under the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP to determine 
whether there have been developments in practices, processes, or 
control technologies by lime manufacturing sources. These include the 
following:
     Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits 
submitted by facilities as part of their response to the questionnaire 
and collected from state agencies;
     Information on air pollution control options in the lime 
manufacturing industry from the Reasonably Available Control 
Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission 
Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC); and
     Communication with trade groups and associations 
representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their 
members.

III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
action.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's 
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our 
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI 
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ 
system.

[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of 
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, 
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the 
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional 
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and 
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.

See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only 
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include 
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and 
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be 
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health

[[Page 48713]]

information. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety 
analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the 
relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting 
an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific 
source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic 
factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source 
category to source category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the 
uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed 
earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and 
ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions 
from other facilities that do not include the source category under 
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent 
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity 
of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review 
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: 
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this action. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all 
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission 
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR 
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than 
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or 
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the 
assessments too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental 
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with 
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In 
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new 
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we 
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of 
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections 
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data 
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?

    In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of 
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process. 
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not 
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would 
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform 
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we 
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk 
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section 
IV.B of this preamble).
    The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph

[[Page 48714]]

describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. 
The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which 
provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in 
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The 
methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven primary steps 
below) are consistent with those described by the EPA in the document 
reviewed by a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the 
SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    A questionnaire was sent out to nine companies (covering 44 
facilities) in 2017. The available test data collected were from the 
1990's through 2017. Of the 44 facilities that received the 
questionnaire, 32 were verified to be major sources and were included 
in the modeling file. Based on the results of the questionnaire and 
research into three non-questionnaire facilities, there are 96 lime 
kilns at the 35 major sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants 
NESHAP.
    Particulate matter test data were provided for most of the lime 
kilns and the lime kiln and coolers with common exhausts. PM particle 
size by the kiln emission control type was assigned based on data from 
AP-42.\5\ For kiln controls or other sources not listed in AP-42, 
default particles sizes and mass distributions were used for the entire 
source category. In addition to kiln data, a small amount of PSH 
operations provided emissions test data in response to the 
questionnaire. Because there was so little test data for PSH 
operations, air emissions inventory (AEI) data \6\ were used as the 
source of PSH PM emissions in lieu of the limited test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, AP-42, Fifth 
Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 
1995.
    \6\ Title V of the Clean Air Act requires major sources of air 
pollution and certain other facilities to apply for and obtain title 
V operating permits. State and local authorities overseeing the 
title V permitting program typically require permit holders to 
develop annual air emissions inventories for the purposes of fee 
determination. These annual inventories were requested in the 
questionnaire and the data were used for this modeling effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test data for HAP metals were provided for 17 emission release 
points of lime kilns. Data were provided both for kilns only, and for 
kilns with co-mingled lime cooler exhaust. Because the data set 
received was very limited and the emissions were not significantly 
different, emissions data from stand-alone kilns and shared stacks were 
treated as similar rather than categorized separately for purposes of 
estimating emissions. For non-mercury HAP metals, test data were used 
in conjunction with corresponding PM data to develop mass fractions of 
HAP metals (i.e., HAP metal/PM). These were applied to PM test data to 
estimate HAP metal emissions for kilns, coolers, and kilns/coolers with 
common exhaust. For mercury emissions, test results were used in 
conjunction with operating hours to estimate annual mercury emissions 
for kilns, coolers, and kilns/coolers with common exhaust.
    Test data for hydrochloric acid (HCl) were provided for 33 emission 
release points of lime kilns and kilns/coolers with common exhausts. 
Organic HAP test data were provided for nine emission release points of 
kilns/coolers with common exhaust. Dioxins and furans (D/F) test data 
were provided for five emission release points of both lime kilns and 
kilns/coolers with common exhausts.
    Because the HAP emissions data set received is very limited, 
emission factors were developed from test data collected from the 
questionnaire and AEI data. When emissions test data or AEI data were 
available for an applicable emission unit, the average emission rate of 
the available data was applied to that applicable emissions unit. In 
cases where data were unavailable for an applicable emission unit, 
default emissions values were developed and assigned as needed. 
Emission defaults were determined as the average of all test or AEI 
data in each applicable emission unit category (e.g., kiln vs. PSH 
operations) or sub-category (e.g., existing kilns with wet scrubbers).
    Due to the nature of the data provided for PM and HAP compounds 
(i.e., HAP metal, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F), stand-alone kilns and 
kilns/coolers with common exhausts were treated the same rather than 
categorizing their emissions separately. Specifically, there were not 
enough data (e.g., in the case of HAP metals, organic HAP, and D/F) 
provided for stand-alone kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts or 
variation (e.g., in the case of PM and HCl) in the data to justify the 
development of sub-categorized emission factor sets based on the 
difference between stand-alone kilns and kilns that had co-mingled kiln 
and cooler stacks. PSH operations did not require review or development 
of individual sub-categories.
    For units that did not provide test result data, default emission 
rates were developed based on the category of kiln/cooler (new or 
existing) and the service date of the wet scrubber (before or after 
January 5, 2004), since these factors align with the PM emission limits 
of the kiln in the rule. To develop default factors for PM and HCl, the 
average test results of all single kiln emission units by category/
status were determined for each of three default categories: Existing 
kilns with a wet scrubber installed before January 5, 2004, existing 
kilns without a wet scrubber installed before January 5, 2004, and new 
kilns.
    Six stand-alone lime coolers were reported through the 
questionnaire. Of these, four reported PM emissions test data for a 
total of eleven PM test reports. For these four coolers, emissions were 
determined as the average of the reported PM test data for each 
applicable emission unit. The two remaining lime coolers were assigned 
a default value that was developed as the average of the emissions from 
the four coolers.
    All of the PSH operations were reported as fugitive sources in the 
questionnaire, with the exception of eleven point source PSH emission 
units. Very little PM emissions test data were provided for PSH 
operations, so emissions from these sources were determined from 
reported 2015 and 2016 AEIs, where available. Emissions values were 
tallied in units of tpy. Most questionnaire respondents provided AEIs 
in their responses. However, not all AEIs have PSH emissions reported 
explicitly, and for those that did, some of the unit names/IDs did not 
match with those reported in the questionnaire. The questionnaire 
emission release point IDs were used as the basis for developing PM 
emissions from AEI data. Emissions data per unit was assigned using 
AEIs where the unit names matched, averaging the 2015 and 2016 values. 
Units with no AEI data were assigned the default PM emissions average 
that was developed from AEI data.
    To determine the actual annual emissions of non-mercury HAP metals 
in tpy from kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts, PM emissions 
were first determined using available test data. Each kiln emissions 
unit was assigned a PM value based on average actual EPA Method 5 test 
data for the unit or assigned a default value if PM test data were 
unavailable. PM

[[Page 48715]]

emissions in units of pounds per hour (lb/hr) were determined as the 
average of reported test values (or developed default value) times the 
rate of stone feed during the most recent performance test (collected 
through questionnaire) in units of tons of stone feed per hour. When 
the rate of stone feed per hour was unreported or claimed as CBI, a 
default rate (determined as the average of all reported rates) was 
assigned. Annual PM emissions in units of tpy were determined by 
multiplying hourly PM emissions by the actual annual emission unit 
operating hours reported in the Information Collection Request (ICR) 
and also by the unit conversion from pounds to tons. When the emission 
unit operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, a default value 
(determined as the average of all reported operating hours) was 
assigned. Actual annual PM emissions were then speciated per the HAP 
metal emission factor sets.
    Actual emissions of mercury, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F emissions 
for kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts were based on the test 
data reported to the questionnaire (in units of lb/hr) multiplied by 
the reported actual operating hours of each unit. When the emission 
unit operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, a default value 
(determined as the average of all reported operating hours) was 
assigned.
    Stand-alone lime coolers only emit PM and metal HAP constituents. 
Most of the lime coolers reported through the questionnaire were 
annotated as being co-mingled with kiln exhaust, not stand-alone 
emission units. However, six stand-alone lime coolers were reported to 
the questionnaire. There were no metal HAP test data provided for 
stand-alone lime coolers through the questionnaire. As such, one 
universal set of default metal HAP mass fractions of PM was developed 
from kiln test data. These defaults were applied to all other PM 
emission units, including stand-alone coolers. When the rate of stone 
feed or operating hours were unreported or claimed as CBI, default 
rates (determined as the average of all reported rates) were assigned.
    Process stone handling operations have the potential to emit HAP 
metals in limestone dust. Eleven PSH units were identified as venting 
emissions through a stack and the remaining PSH data were modeled as 
fugitive emissions due to a lack of data in the questionnaire. 
Operating hours were not specifically reported for PSH operations, so 
average kiln operating hours were used when reported, otherwise kiln 
default operating hours were used. Actual emissions were determined 
using the reported or default PM emissions developed from the AEI 
multiplied by the HAP speciation.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred 
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration 
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven 
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed 
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we 
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989.)
    Allowable HAP metal emissions were calculated by using the existing 
applicable PM limit, scaled production, and the maximum operating hours 
per year of 8,760. The hourly production scalar (i.e., tsf scalar) was 
developed by comparing the rate of production during the most recent 
performance test (which is used for the actual emission calculation) to 
the maximum production capacity. Site specific scalars and one default 
scalar were developed to scale the test production rate to the maximum 
capacity. Where production data were unreported or claimed as CBI, 
default rates were developed. For more details on the development of 
the default values, see the memorandum titled Development of the RTR 
Emissions Dataset for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category, in the 
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
    Allowable emissions of mercury, HCl, organic HAP, and D/F emissions 
for kilns and kiln/coolers with common exhausts were calculated using 
8,760 hours. Allowable emissions for PSH operations were determined in 
the same manner as described above for actual emissions, except that 
emissions were scaled up according to the ratio of total operating 
hours over actual operating hours.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risk from the source category addressed in this action were 
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\7\ The HEM-3 performs 
three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion 
modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) 
estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals 
residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) 
estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the 
exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations 
from industrial facilities.\8\ To perform the dispersion modeling and 
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of 
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological 
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto 
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \9\ 
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health 
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \9\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the 
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted 
by

[[Page 48716]]

each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at each 
nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility are a 
surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the 
people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is 
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP 
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
    For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk 
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per 
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum 
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We 
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime 
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of 
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk 
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response 
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In 
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been 
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone 
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such 
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if 
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to 
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we 
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \10\ emitted by the 
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within 
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest 
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census 
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the 
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by 
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose 
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate 
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer 
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that 
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing 
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with 
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ 
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by 
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected 
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that 
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer 
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized 
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: 
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the 
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts 
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP 
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and 
the environment,\11\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological 
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our 
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion 
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the 
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk 
Assessment for Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the 
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. 
We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or 
after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support 
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft 
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed 
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission 
point,\12\ reasonable

[[Page 48717]]

worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile), and the 
point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak 
emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air 
dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the 
point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the 
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a 
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for 
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Lime 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: 
Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. Both 
are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response 
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, 
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \13\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\14\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\ 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations 
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and 
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as 
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above 
which it is predicted that the general population, including 
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other 
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to 
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot 
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in 
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \14\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating 
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for 
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program 
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National 
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \15\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For this source category, we used the default acute multiplier of 
10 to derive a conservative estimate of maximum hourly emissions from 
annual emissions. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, 
acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are 
less than or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these 
HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 
1, we assess the site-specific data to ensure we have assessed the 
acute HQ at an off-site location. For this source category, we did not 
have to perform any refined acute assessments.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine 
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the 
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at 
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the Lime Manufacturing source category, we identified PB-HAP 
emissions of arsenic, D/F, cadmium, mercury, and lead, so we proceeded 
to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health 
risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three progressive 
tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the 
magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP warrants further 
evaluation to characterize human health risk through ingestion 
exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against 
previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-
HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure 
scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk 
Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure 
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates 
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins 
and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). 
Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential, 
these pollutants represent a conservative list

[[Page 48718]]

for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See 
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) The ratio of a facility's 
actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is 
a ``screening value.''
    We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these 
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess 
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds, 
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, and POM) or, for HAP that 
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury 
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP 
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening 
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any 
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a 
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening 
assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 
combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and 
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
    In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility 
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to 
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher/farmer 
scenario. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening assessment is that a 
lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As part of the Tier 2 
screening assessment, we use a USGS database to identify actual 
waterbodies within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only 
consumes fish from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the 
differences between local meteorology near the facility and the 
meteorology used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the 
previously-developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each 
PB-HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure 
concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with the use 
of local meteorology and the USGS lakes database.
    In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the 
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer 
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the 
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by 
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures, 
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations. 
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion 
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end 
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish 
(adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption of fish \16\) and 
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally 
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \17\). If 
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater 
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level 
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening 
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game: 
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of 
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
    \17\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3 
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement 
warranted, including validating that the impacted lakes are fishable, 
locating residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings, 
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing 
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on 
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the 
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific 
assessment.
    In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of 
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission 
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure 
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\18\ Values below the level of the primary 
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for 
multipathway risk. For further information on the multipathway 
assessment approach, see Appendix 6 of the Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a 
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health 
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other 
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to 
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a 
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the 
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to 
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting 
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, 
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk 
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury 
and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the 
screening assessment are HCl and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental

[[Page 48719]]

HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each 
assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels, 
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect 
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a 
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available 
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist 
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the Lime Manufacturing source 
category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Lime 
Manufacturing source category, we identified emissions of arsenic, D/F, 
HCl, cadmium, and mercury. Because one or more of the environmental HAP 
above are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we 
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury 
and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the exception of lead, 
the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of 
three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk screening 
assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model that is 
used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model 
simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 screening threshold 
emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the 
emission rate in tons per year that results in media concentrations at 
the facility that equal the relevant ecological benchmark. To assess 
emissions from each facility in the category, the reported emission 
rate for each PB-HAP was compared to the Tier 1 screening threshold 
emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment endpoint and effect 
level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed the Tier 1 screening 
threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the screening 
assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further under the 
screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 
screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in 
Tier 2.
    In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening 
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology 
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did 
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the 
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius 
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant 
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the 
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the 
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If 
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold 
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
    As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of 
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of 
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that 
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are 
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the 
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an 
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more 
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after 
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the 
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential 
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
    To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from 
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3) 
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the 
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide 
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can 
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made 
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage 
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as 
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
    The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the 
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to 
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening 
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that 
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the 
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential 
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the 
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: 
the size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the 
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average 
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the 
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the 
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. 
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI for 31 of the 35 modeled 
facilities. The remaining four facilities' emissions data were 
collected using a combination of approaches, including using permit 
data and substituting emissions data from similar site(s) (refer to 
Appendix 1 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category in

[[Page 48720]]

Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action for further information).
    The source category records of the dataset were removed, evaluated, 
and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data 
collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a 
quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed 
back with the remaining records for that facility. The facility-wide 
file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that 
are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km 
of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source 
category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk 
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the 
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks 
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this 
action. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated 
with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that 
risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the 
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the 
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the 
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
    For this source category, the majority of the facility-wide dataset 
that the EPA compiled were from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for 
the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-category'' data. 
Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for 
the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed 
risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' 
for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent 
with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. 
For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to 
identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to 
the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks 
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this 
action. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated 
with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that 
risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the 
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the 
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the 
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was 
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the 
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual 
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved 
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions 
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions 
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission 
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this 
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission 
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on a 
default emission adjustment factor of 10 applied to the average annual 
hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission 
fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor 
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the 
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. 
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high 
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants 
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when 
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we 
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the 
block centroids to better represent

[[Page 48721]]

the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations 
where the population of a block is not well represented by a single 
location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; 
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human 
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, 
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific 
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the 
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\19\ 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low 
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\20\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach,\21\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps 
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response 
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \20\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
    \21\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference 
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for 
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of 
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health 
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources 
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are 
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot 
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in 
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this 
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for 
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a 
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is 
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, 
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for 
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of 
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those 
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the 
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the 
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in 
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, 
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control 
options.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a 
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR 
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and 
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) 
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is 
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions 
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most 
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of 
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable 
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening 
Assessments
    For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels 
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined 
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or 
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening 
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs

[[Page 48722]]

from models--TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental 
pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (D/F, POM, 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (hydrogen fluoride 
and hydrogen chloride). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient 
air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS 
standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with 
the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any 
assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty 
and input uncertainty.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty'' 
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in 
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing 
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in 
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents 
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur 
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the 
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is 
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from 
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the 
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk 
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
    Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have 
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we 
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This 
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally 
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the 
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of 
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface 
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We 
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human 
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
    In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological 
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end 
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the 
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. 
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local 
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that 
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby 
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for 
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also 
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the 
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These 
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations 
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those 
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding 
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three 
tiers.
    For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we 
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations 
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
    For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening 
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is 
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the 
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion 
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach 
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse 
impacts.
    Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities 
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we 
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on 
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants 
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not 
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that 
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be 
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the 
source category.
    The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or 
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 
cadmium, D/F, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl mercury), POM, 
HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse 
impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through 
exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils and surface 
waters and then through the environment into the food web. These HAP 
represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful multipathway 
or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP not included 
in our screening assessments, the model has not been parameterized such 
that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the 
HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to 
predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that 
other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may have the potential to 
cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other 
relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

    As described above, for the Lime Manufacturing source category we 
conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a 
multipathway screening assessment for the PB-HAP emitted, and an 
environmental risk screening assessment for the PB-HAP and HCl emitted 
from the source category. We present results of the risk assessment 
briefly below and in more detail in the the Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    The EPA estimated inhalation risk based on actual and allowable 
emissions. The estimated baseline maximum inhalation cancer risk (MIR) 
posed by the source category is 1-in-1 million based on actual 
emissions and 2-in-1 million based upon MACT-allowable emissions. The 
total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 
0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 1,000 years. The 
total estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels is 
0.003 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 333 years. 
Emissions of metals, aldehydes, and organic HAP from the lime kiln and 
cooler exhaust accounted for 93 percent to the cancer incidence. The 
estimated population exposed to cancer risk of 1-in-1 million based 
upon actual emissions is 12 (see Table 2 of this preamble).
    The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for the source category

[[Page 48723]]

were estimated to be less than 1 (0.04) based on actual emissions and 
less than 1 (0.05) based upon allowable emissions. For both actual and 
allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by HCl, nickel 
compounds, and acrolein emissions from lime kiln and cooler exhaust.

                                 Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Lime Manufacturing \1\ Source Category
                                                             [40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAAA]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Maximum         Estimated
                                                       individual     population at      Estimated
         Risk assessment              Number of     cancer risk  (1-  increased risk   annual cancer   Maximum chronic noncancer     Maximum screening
                                    facilities \2\   in-1 million)   of cancer  >= 1-    incidence             TOSHI \4\          acute noncancer HQ \5\
                                                          \3\          in-1 million    (cases per yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions:
    Source Category..............               35                1               12            0.001  0.04 (respiratory).......  0.6 (REL)
    Facility-Wide................               35                1               30            0.004  0.4 (respiratory)........  ......................
Baseline Allowable Emissions:
    Source Category..............               35                2              450            0.003  0.05 (respiratory).......  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 35 operating facilities subject to subpart AAAAA.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Lime Manufacturing source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. The acute
  HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1 hour dose-response value, the REL for elemental mercury. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using
  the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
    Based on our screening analysis of reasonable worst-case acute 
exposure to actual emissions from the category, no HAP exposures result 
in an HQ greater than 1 (0.6) based upon the 1- hour REL. As discussed 
in section III.C.3.c of this preamble, we used the default acute hourly 
multiplier of 10 for all emission processes.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from all 
35 facilities in the source category exceed the Tier 1 screening 
threshold emission rates for the carcinogenic PB-HAP, D/F, and arsenic. 
Emissions from 34 of the 35 facilities exceed the Tier 1 screening 
threshold emission rate for mercury, a PB-HAP with noncancer health 
effects. Cadmium emissions from all but one facility were below the 
Tier 1 noncancer screening threshold emission rate. For the PB-HAP and 
facilities with Tier 1 screening values greater than 1, we conducted a 
Tier 2 screening analysis.
    D/F and arsenic emissions from 26 facilities exceeded the Tier 2 
cancer screening value of 1. The Tier 2 fisher scenario resulted in a 
maximum cancer screening value of 20 with D/F emissions driving the 
risk. The Tier 2 farmer scenario resulted in a maximum cancer screening 
value of 20 due to both arsenic and D/F emissions. For cadmium, the 
Tier 2 noncancer screening value (0.1) did not exceed 1. Mercury 
emissions from 16 facilities had Tier 2 noncancer screening values 
greater than 1 under the fisher scenario, with the largest Tier 2 
screen value equal to 4. When we evaluated the effect multiple 
facilities within the source category could have on common lake(s) in 
the modeling domain, mercury emissions exceeded the noncancer screening 
value by a factor of 5.
    For mercury, we continued the fisher scenario screening analysis 
with a Tier 3 multipathway screen which comprises three individual 
stages. These stages included lake, plume rise, and time-series 
assessments. Tier 3 lake and plume rise assessments weres conducted for 
all facilities with Tier 2 mercury screening values greater than 1. A 
Tier 3 time series screen was conducted for the facility with the 
highest mercury non-cancer screening value after conducting the lake 
and plume rise assessments. After conducting the time series screen, 
the facility evaluated had a Tier 3 non-cancer screening value of 2 for 
mercury, including consideration of cumulative lake impacts from 
facilities within the source category.
    One of the facilities evaluated in the Tier 3 plume-rise screen for 
mercury also had the highest Tier 2 cancer screening value under the 
fisher scenario, 20 for D/F. The refined Tier 3 plume rise assessment 
for this facility resulted in a cancer screening value of 10. This 
cancer screening value of 10 for the fisher scenario is the highest for 
the source category. Further details on the Tier 3 screening analysis 
can be found in Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology 
Review 2019 Proposed Rule.
    A screening value in any of the tiers is not an estimate of the 
cancer risk or a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value 
represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For 
example, facility emissions resulting in a screening value of 2 for a 
non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that 
the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions resulting 
in a cancer screening value of 20 for a carcinogen means that we are 
confident that the cancer risk is lower than 20-in-1 million. Our 
confidence comes from the health-protective assumptions that are 
incorporated into the screens: We choose inputs from the upper end of 
the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the 
screens and we assume food consumption behaviors that would lead to 
high total exposure. This risk assessment estimates the maximum hazard 
for mercury through fish consumption based on upper bound screens and 
the maximum excess cancer risks from D/F and arsenic through ingestion 
of fish and farm produce.
    When we progress from the model designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 
screens to a site-specific assessment, we refine the risk assessment 
through incorporation of additional site-specific data and enhanced 
model designs. Site-specific refinements include the following; (1) 
improved spatial locations identifying the boundaries of the watershed 
and lakes within the watershed as they relate to surrounding facilities 
within the source category; (2) calculating actual soil/water run-off 
amounts to target lakes based upon actual soil type(s) and elevation 
changes associated with the affected watershed versus assuming a worst-
case

[[Page 48724]]

assumption of 100-percent run-off to target lakes; and (3) 
incorporating AERMOD deposition of pollutants into TRIM.FaTE to 
accurately account for site-specific release parameters such as stack 
heights and exit gas temperatures, versus using TRIMFaTE's simple 
dispersion algorithms that assume the pollutant is uniformly 
distributed within the airshed. These refinements have the net effect 
of improved modeling of the mass of HAP entering a lake by more 
accurately defining the watershed/lake boundaries as well as the 
dispersion of HAP into the atmosphere to better reflect deposition 
contours across all target watersheds and lakes in our 50 km model 
domain.
    As discussed above, the maximum mercury Tier 2 non-cancer screening 
value for this source category is 5 with subsequent refinement 
resulting in a Tier 3 screening value of 2. The EPA has determined that 
it is not necessary to go beyond the Tier 3 assessment to a site-
specific assessment. As explained above, the screening value of 2 is a 
high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be and can be 
interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower 
than 2. Further, risk results from three site-specific mercury 
assessments the EPA has conducted for three RTR source categories 
resulted in noncancer HQs that were at least 50 times lower than the 
respective Tier 2 screening value for these facilities (refer to EPA 
Docket ID No.: 2017-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 for a copy of these reports).\23\ 
Based on our review of these analyses, we would expect at least a one 
order of magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 noncancer screening values 
for mercury for the Lime Manufacturing source category, if we were to 
perform a site-specific assessment. In addition, based upon the 
conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional 
refinements that would go into a site-specific multipathway assessment, 
were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HI for ingestion 
exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1. 
Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in 
Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Source Category in 
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; 
Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU Source Category in Support 
of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the 
secondary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean 
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead 
concentration, of 0.0007 [micro]g/m\3\, is below the NAAQS level for 
lead, indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an 
environmental risk screening assessment for the Lime Manufacturing 
source category for the following pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, D/F, 
HCl, hydrofluoric acid, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric 
chloride), and POM.
    In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which 
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, and POM emissions had no 
exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. D/F 
emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at 31 facilities for a surface soil 
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (mammalian insectivores--
shrew) by a maximum screening value of 30. Divalent mercury emissions 
had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks: Sediment threshold 
level (one facility), surface soil threshold level--plant communities 
(25 facilities), and surface soil threshold level--invertebrate 
communities (32 facilities) by a maximum screening value of 20. Methyl 
mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks: 
Fish (avian/piscivores) NOAEL--Merganser (one facility), surface soil 
NOAEL for mammalian insectivores--shrew (13 facilities), and surface 
soil NOAEL for avian ground insectivores--woodcock (33 facilities) by a 
maximum screening value of 40.
    A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for D/F, divalent 
mercury, and methyl mercury emissions. In the Tier 2 screening 
analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks 
evaluated for any of the pollutants.
    For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead 
NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average modeled concentration around each 
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points 
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In 
addition, each individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., 
each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the 
ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
    Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, 
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP 
emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 35 
facilities, based on facility-wide emissions, is 1-in-1 million 
(estimated for three facilities), with arsenic, chromium (VI) 
compounds, and nickel emissions from fugitive PSH operations driving 
the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from facility-wide 
emissions is 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 
250 years. Approximately 30 people are estimated to have cancer risk 
equal to 1-in-1 million from facility-wide emissions. The maximum 
facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1 
(0.4), mainly driven by emissions of HCl from a facility-wide fugitive 
area source.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the Lime Manufacturing 
source category across different demographic groups within the 
populations living near facilities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people 
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated 
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3 
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.

[[Page 48725]]



                  Table 3--Lime Manufacturing Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Population with cancer risk at    Population
                                                                  or above 1-in-1 million due to   with chronic
                                                                        lime manufacturing         hazard index
                                                                 -------------------------------- above 1 due to
                                                                                      Source           lime
                                                                    Nationwide       category      manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     317,746,049              12               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              62              75               0
All Other Races.................................................              38              25               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              62              75               0
African American................................................              12              17               0
Native American.................................................             0.8               0               0
Other and Multiracial...........................................               7               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              14              17               0
Above Poverty Level.............................................              86              83               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              14              22               0
Over 25 and with a..............................................              86              78               0
High School Diploma.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               6               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Lime Manufacturing source category demographic 
analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose 
approximately 12 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and 
no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages 
of the at-risk population indicate that three of the 10 demographic 
groups (White, African American and people below the poverty level) 
that are living within 50 km of facilities in the source category 
exceed the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic 
groups.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As explained in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets 
standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-
setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an 
`acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk 
estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of 
approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). The 
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information, including science 
policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties, in determining whether 
risk posed by emissions from the source category is acceptable.
    The maximum cancer risk for inhalation exposure to actual emissions 
from the Lime Manufacturing source category (1-in-1 million) is two 
orders of magnitude below 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive 
upper limit of acceptable risk. The maximum inhalation cancer risk 
based on MACT allowable emissions (2-in-1 million) is similar. The EPA 
estimates emissions from the category would result in a cancer 
incidence of 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case every 
1,000 years. Twelve individuals are estimated to have inhalation cancer 
risk equal to 1-in-1 million. Inhalation exposures to HAP associated 
with chronic noncancer health effects result in a TOSHI of 0.04 based 
on actual emissions, 25 times below an exposure that the EPA has 
estimated is without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. 
Exposures to HAP associated with acute noncancer health effects also 
are below levels of health concern with no HAP exposures resulting in 
an HQ greater than 1 (0.6) based upon the 1-hour REL.
    Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using 
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 10-in-1 million 
for the Tier 3 fisher scenario and below 20-in-1 million for the Tier 2 
farmer exposure scenario. The Tier 3 noncancer screening analyses of 
mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum HQ 
for mercury would be less than 2, as explained in section III.C.4 of 
this preamble. The EPA is confident that this hazard estimate would be 
reduced to a HQ of less than 1 if further refined to incorporate 
enhanced site-specific analyses such as improved model boundary 
identification with improved soil/water run-off calculations and AERMOD 
deposition outputs used in the TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of the 
health risk information and factors discussed above, as well as the 
uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose 
that the risks posed by emissions from the Lime

[[Page 48726]]

Manufacturing source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to 
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or 
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP from the source category. In 
this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk 
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine 
whether there are any measures that would reduce risk further.
    Although we are proposing that the risks from this source category 
are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 12 people in the 
exposed population are equal to 1-in-1 million, caused by chromium (VI) 
compounds, arsenic, nickel, and cadmium emissions (see Table 2 of this 
preamble). Lime kiln and cooler exhaust emissions result in 93 percent 
of the cancer incidence for this source category. The NESHAP controls 
PM as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP metals. Our technology review did 
not identify any practices, controls, or process options that are being 
used in this industry that would result in further reduction of PM 
emissions.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source 
Category; see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For D/F and mercury emissions, activated carbon injection (ACI) 
systems installed prior to the PM control device were identified as a 
potential control technology. We found that ACI systems have been used 
on municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and cement 
kilns. Experience with ACI on municipal waste combustors and medical 
waste incinerators led the EPA to develop emission limits for D/F 
emissions for these sources in the range of 0.26 to 2.5 nanograms as 
toxic equivalents per dry standard cubic meter (ng TEQ/dscm). These D/F 
emission levels are well above the D/F emission levels (0.008 to 0.0148 
ng TEQ/dscm) that have been measured from lime kilns. Total annual 
costs for an ACI system, installed prior to the existing PM control 
device, are estimated to be $137,000 per lime kiln. Based on the cost 
and considering the potential negligible reduction of the already low 
measured D/F emissions, we do not consider the use of ACI systems to be 
cost effective for the industry to further reduce D/F emissions. The 
use of ACI systems would have little effect on the source category 
risks.
    As for mercury emissions, ACI is used on cement kilns which are 
similar to lime kilns in design, fuel combusted, and feed material. In 
the RTR conducted for the portland cement manufacturing industry, we 
estimated that for a typical cement kiln that the addition of an ACI 
system would result in a 2.3 to 3.0 lb per year reduction in mercury 
(see 82 FR 44277). Assuming a similar reduction in mercury emissions 
would be achieved for a typical lime kiln, the cost effectiveness of an 
ACI system installed prior to the PM control device would be $46,000 to 
$60,000 per lb of mercury removed. Thus, we do not consider the use of 
ACI systems to be cost effective for the industry to use to further 
reduce mercury emissions. Our risk analysis indicated the noncancer 
risks from mercury are low and any further risk reduction from the use 
of ACI would be minimal.
    Because no additional cost-effective measures were identified to 
further reduce HAP risk from affected sources in the Lime Manufacturing 
source category, we are proposing that the current NESHAP provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
    Based on the results of our environmental risk screening, we do not 
anticipate an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions 
from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary 
to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration 
costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse 
environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database 
on-line to locate applicable control technologies. We searched the RBLC 
database for RBL determinations made during the time period between 
this NESHAP promulgation date (January 05, 2004) and the date the RBLC 
search was conducted (August 27, 2018). Search results showed a total 
of 17 facilities with RBL determinations during the 2004-2018 time 
frame. These results were reviewed to identify any developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies related to reducing 
emissions of PM from lime kilns and PSH operations.
    The primary controls identified were the use of fabric filters to 
control PM emissions from stacks and the use of water (wet suppression) 
for the control of PM emissions from fugitive PSH operations. These 
methods of control served as the basis for standards promulgated in the 
original NESHAP. The results of the RBLC search did not identify 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for the 
Lime Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    To identify developments in emission control strategies, the 
following questions were asked as part of the January 2017 ICR:
     Do you use any alternative control devices (i.e., control 
devices other than fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), 
or wet scrubbers), monitoring procedures, or operating conditions at 
this facility?
     Do you have any plans to install any new higher efficiency 
rated control devices or have any pending applications to add on any 
new controls?
     Describe any procedures you use at your facility to 
prevent pollution (as opposed to controlling pollution after it is 
formed).
     Have you implemented any work practice standards or 
standard operating procedures that will further reduce HAP emissions?
    The responses to this inquiry did not identify any developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies that would warrant 
revision to the existing emission standards for the Lime Manufacturing 
source category.
    This review did not identify any developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies for PM that have been implemented in 
this source category since promulgation of the current NESHAP in 
January of 2004. Consequently, we propose that no revisions to the 
NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For a detailed 
discussion of the findings, refer to the Technology Review for the Lime 
Manufacturing Source Category memorandum in the docket.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are 
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing 
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure 
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that 
exempted sources from the requirement to comply

[[Page 48727]]

with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during 
periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic reporting 
of Notification of Compliance Status reports, semiannual compliance 
reports, and performance test reports. Our analyses and proposed 
changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's 
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that 
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations 
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the 
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule, 
which appears at 40 CFR 63.7100 and in Table 8 to subpart AAAAA of part 
63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in 
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several 
revisions to Table 8 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is 
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal 
of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities 
regulated under the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. Deviations 
currently addressed by a facility's SSM plan are required to be 
reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that 
remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.7130). Facilities will no longer 
need to develop an SSM plan or keep it current (Table 8, 40 CFR part 
63, subpart AAAAA).
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, is proposing alternate standards for those periods.
    The EPA has made the determination under CAA section 112(h) that 
for kilns and coolers it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 
numeric standard during periods of startup and shutdown because the 
application of measurement methodology is impracticable due to 
technological and economic limitations. The test methods required for 
demonstrating compliance are required to be conducted under isokinetic 
conditions (i.e., steady-state conditions in terms of exhaust gas 
temperature, moisture, flow rate), which is difficult to achieve during 
periods of startup and shutdown where conditions are constantly 
changing. In addition, information \26\ provided on the amount of time 
required for startup and shutdown of lime kilns indicates that the 
application of measurement methodology for these sources using the 
required procedures, which would require more hours (6) in startup or 
shutdown mode to satisfy the sample volume requirements in the rule, is 
impracticable. Upon review of this information, the EPA determined that 
it is not feasible to require stack testing, in particular, to complete 
the multiple required test runs during periods of startup and shutdown 
due to physical limitations and the short duration of startup and 
shutdown periods. Based on these specific facts for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category, we are proposing work practice standards 
for these periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Lime Kiln Principles and Operations, Terry N. Adams, 
https://www.tappi.org/content/events/08Kros/manuscripts/2.2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to require sources to vent emissions to the 
main stack and operate all control devices necessary to meet the normal 
operating limits under this NESHAP (with the exception of ESPs) when 
firing fuel in the lime kiln during startup and shutdown. We are 
proposing that startup ends 1 hour after lime is produced from the 
kiln.
    Stakeholders in several source categories have expressed concerns 
that the requirement for engaging applicable control devices does not 
accommodate potential safety problems associated with ESP operation. 
Recommended manufacturer operating procedures provided to the EPA 
during rulemaking for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 
Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP explained the potential hazards 
associated with ESP energization when unburned fuel may exist in the 
presence of oxygen levels high enough that the mixture can be in the 
flammable range. In addition, the stakeholders claim that the ESP 
cannot practically be engaged until a certain flue gas temperature is 
reached. Specifically, they claim that premature starting of this 
equipment will lead to short-term stability problems that could result 
in unsafe operations and longer term degradation of ESP performance due 
to fouling, increased chances of wire damage, or increased corrosion 
within the chambers. They also state that vendors providing this 
equipment incorporate these safety and operational concerns into their 
standard operating procedures. For example, they claim that some ESPs 
have oxygen sensors and alarms that shut down the ESP at high flue gas 
oxygen levels to avoid a fire in the unit. The oxygen level is 
typically high during startup, so the ESP may not engage due to these 
safety controls until more stable operating conditions are reached. 
These stakeholder claims are supported by a guidance document \27\ 
prepared by a trade association of companies that supply air pollution 
control equipment. Therefore, the EPA is proposing an alternate work 
practice requirement for operating ESP control devices during periods 
of startup as follows: Lime kilns owners and operators shall, when 
firing fuel, vent emissions to the main stack and engage the ESP within 
1 hour after the inlet exhaust temperature to the ESP reaches 300 
degrees Fahrenheit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Guidance Document on Startup and Shutdown under MATS, 
Institute of Clean Air Companies, July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to clarify that the work practice does not supersede any 
other standard or requirements to which the affected source is subject, 
the EPA is including in the proposed alternate work practice provision 
a requirement that control devices operate when necessary to comply 
with other standards (e.g., new source performance standards, state 
regulations) applicable to the source.
    In addition, to ensure compliance with the proposed definition of 
startup and the work practice standard that applies during startup 
periods, we are proposing that certain events and parameters be 
monitored and recorded during the startup periods. These events include 
the time when firing (i.e., feeding) starts for fuel and limestone; the 
time when lime is produced; and the time when the PM controls are 
engaged. The parameters to be monitored and recorded during each 
startup period include the hourly flue gas temperature and all hourly 
average continuous monitoring system data (e.g., opacity, ESP total 
secondary electric power input, scrubber liquid flow rate) to

[[Page 48728]]

confirm that the control devices are engaged.
    We request comments on the proposed startup and shutdown provisions 
(definitions and work practices).
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2, 
definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading 
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions 
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level 
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing 
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the 
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' 
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the 
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing 
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.'' 
National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 
1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in 
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the 
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is 
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of 
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a 
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in ``normal 
or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider 
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, for example, 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999). ``The EPA 
typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data gathering 
necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's 
decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, 
rather than to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study'.''. 
See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978), 
``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even 
any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a 
certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by 
`uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, 
operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other 
eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of 
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance 
by regulation.'' In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can 
be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source 
operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-
percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might 
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the 
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut 
down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until 
the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the 
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As 
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the 
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 
standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent 
than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning 
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a 
result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA 
section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a 
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in 
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events 
because information was available to determine that such work practices 
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80 
FR 75178, 75211-14; December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether 
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of 
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to 
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard 
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such 
information.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA (830 F.3d 579, 606-610; D.C. 
Cir. 2016).
a. General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 8) 
entry

[[Page 48729]]

for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language 
in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the 
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add 
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7100 that reflects the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in 
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is 
proposing for 40 CFR 63.7100 does not include that language from 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) 
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the 
SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.7100.
    We are also proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a ``yes'' in column 3.
    Finally, we are proposing to revise Table 8 to remove an entry for 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) because this paragraph is reserved and is not 
applicable to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and 
include a ``no'' in column 3. Generally, these paragraphs require 
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to 
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to 
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a 
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample 
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan 
requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)-(3) 
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(f)(2)-(3) and adding an entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The current language 
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during 
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA 
requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards 
in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1)-(2) 
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2) and adding an entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(h)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The current language of 
40 CFR 93.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods 
of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the 
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires 
that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with 
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule to apply at 
all times.
d. Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)-(4) 
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)-(4) and adding an entry for 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) 
describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead 
proposing to revise the performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.7112 to remove the language ``according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1)'' because 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) restated the SSM exemption. 40 
CFR 63.7112(c) of the current rule specifies that performance testing 
must not be conducted during periods of SSM. Section 63.7112(b) also 
specifies that the performance test be conducted under the specific 
conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. Operations during 
periods of SSM, and during periods of nonoperation do not constitute 
representative operating conditions. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.7112(h) requires the owner or operator to record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and the EPA is proposing to add language that requires the 
owner and operator to include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does 
not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory 
text in the current rule already makes explicit the requirement to 
record the information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)-(3) 
by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.8(c)(2)-(3) and adding entries for 40 
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(iii) and including a ``no'' in 
column 3. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan 
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary considering other 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control 
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a 
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) and 
adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in 
column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping 
requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead proposing to 
add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.7132. When a source is 
subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will be 
important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end 
in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, 
the EPA is proposing language in 40 CFR 63.7132 requiring that sources 
subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that differs 
from the emission standard that applies at all other times must report 
the date, time, and duration of such periods.
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 to add an entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3. Section 
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a 
malfunction. A similar record is already required in 40 CFR 63.7131(d) 
and (e). The regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e) differs from 
the General Provisions in that the General Provisions requires the 
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of 
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment; whereas 40 CFR 63.7131(d) and (e) applies to any failure to 
meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the 
date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' 
The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.7132 a requirement that 
sources keep records that include a list of the affected

[[Page 48730]]

source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an 
estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the 
standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment 
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that 
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is 
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any 
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how 
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source 
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 by adding an entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 3. When applicable, 
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM 
events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer 
be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record 
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.7132.
    We are proposing to revise Table 8 by adding an entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in column 3. When applicable, the 
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to 
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The 
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer 
be required.
g. Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the Table 8 entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) 
describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, 
the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.7131. 
The replacement language differs from the General Provisions 
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone 
report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to 
meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information 
concerning such events in the semi-annual compliance report already 
required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must also 
contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source 
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. 
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, 
shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable 
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require 
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan because 
plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that beginning 180 days 
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, owners and 
operators of lime manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of 
required Notification of Compliance Status reports (portable document 
format (PDF), semiannual reports, and performance test reports through 
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the 
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum titled 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. The 
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using 
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \28\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that 
other performance test results be submitted in PDF using the attachment 
module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that owners and 
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit 
information to CEDRI beginning 181 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register. A draft version of the proposed template 
for these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\29\ 
The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and 
overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 40_CFR_Part_63_Subpart_AAAAA National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants 
Residual Risk and Technology 
Review_Semiannual_Spreadsheet_Template_Draft.xlsm, available at 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both 
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional 
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and 
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these 
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance 
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the 
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The first 
situation in which an extension may be warranted is due to outages of 
the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an owner or operator from 
accessing the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 
CFR 63.8693(h). The second situation is due to a force majeure event, 
which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by 
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its 
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to 
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 
40 CFR 63.8693(i). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of 
war or terrorism, or

[[Page 48731]]

equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, 
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \30\ to 
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's 
Agency-wide policy \31\ developed in response to the White House's 
Digital Government Strategy.\32\ For more information on the benefits 
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/documentD=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \31\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \32\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    The following are additional proposed changes that address 
technical and editorial corrections:
     Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.7113 to 
the provision that triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-
98-015. Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance;
     Revising 40 CFR 63.7142 to add an alternative test method 
to EPA Method 320;
     Revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM 
Method D6735-01;
     Revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM 
Method D6420-99; and
     Revising Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, to add 
alternative compliance option.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply 
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the 
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that 
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after 
September 16, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, 
including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective 
date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All 
affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not expected 
to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), therefore, the 
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as 
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing affected sources, we 
are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance 
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. As discussed elsewhere 
in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that 
notifications, performance test results, and the semiannual reports 
using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also 
proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption 
from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by 
removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our 
experience with similar industries that have been required to convert 
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary 
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance 
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new 
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic 
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different 
time-reporting parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to 
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter 
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update 
their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA 
recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for 
individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an 
assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the time frame 
needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, 
the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious 
compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing 
affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised 
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. We 
solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically 
request submission of information from sources in this source category 
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply 
with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the 
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We 
note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed 
compliance date.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are currently 35 lime manufacturing facilities operating in 
the United States that are subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants 
NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, affected source is the lime 
kiln and its associated cooler, and the PSH operation system located at 
a major source of HAP emissions. A new or reconstructed affected source 
is a source that commenced construction after December 20, 2002, or 
meets the definition of reconstruction and commenced reconstruction 
after December 20, 2002.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are 
estimated to be approximately 2,320 tpy in 2019. This represents a 
reduction in HAP emissions of about 240 tpy due to the current (2004) 
Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. The proposed amendments will require 
all affected

[[Page 48732]]

sources subject to the emission standards in the Lime Manufacturing 
Plants NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We were unable to 
quantify the specific emissions reduction associated with eliminating 
the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce 
emissions by requiring facilities to meet the proposed work practice 
standards during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA 
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this 
rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 35 lime manufacturing plants that would be subject to the 
proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the proposed work practice 
standards for periods of startup and shutdown. Nationwide costs 
associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $14,355 
following promulgation of the amendments. The EPA believes that the 
lime manufacturing plants which are subject to the NESHAP can meet the 
proposed requirements with minimal additional capital or operational 
costs. For further information on the requirements being proposed, see 
section IV of this preamble. Each facility will experience costs to 
read and understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with the 
elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as part of the 
reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-evaluating 
previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated with the 
requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-annual 
compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the reporting 
and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming familiar with 
CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual compliance reports. We 
solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a 
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a proposed rule. The total costs associated with reviewing 
the final rule, meeting the revised recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, and complying with the proposed work practice standards 
are estimated to be $14,355 following promulgation of the final rule. 
This is an estimated cost of $250 to $2750 per facility, depending on 
the number of lime kilns operated and the type of controls installed. 
These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, 
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed 
by the firms. Based on the costs associated with the elimination of the 
SSM exemption and the costs associated with the requirement to 
electronically submit compliance reports, we do not anticipate any 
significant economic impacts from these proposed amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if 
finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to the rule. 
Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards such that 
they apply at all times. For facilities who choose to operate under an 
initial startup period, the EPA is proposing an alternative work 
practice standard that will ensure that facilities are minimizing 
emissions while the source operates under non-steady state production, 
which will protect public health and the environment. Additionally, the 
proposed amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial 
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will 
increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends 
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public 
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden 
on the regulated community. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for 
more information.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In 
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also 
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and 
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any 
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles 
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting 
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the 
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII 
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-
air-

[[Page 48733]]

pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-
hazardous-air.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.06. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    We are proposing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP in the form of 
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring 
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance 
test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the 
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, 
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of lime 
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or 
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime 
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, 
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes 
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years, 
approximately 36 existing major sources will be subject to these 
standards. It is also estimated that one additional respondent will 
become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over 
the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is 
estimated to be 9,690 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and 
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the 
requirements in the NESHAP is estimated to be $1,400,000 (per year), of 
which $14,355 (first year) is for this proposal, and the rest is for 
other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAP including 
$338,000 in annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than October 16, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. This action only proposes to 
eliminate the startup/shutdown exemption and add electronic reporting. 
Neither of the changes being proposed will impact the small entities. 
The proposal to remove the startup/shutdown exemption will include 
proposing a work practice standard for those periods. Based on the 
controls used at the small entities, they will not be impacted by the 
proposed work practices. Thus, this action will not impose any 
requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk 
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a

[[Page 48734]]

significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B manual 
portion only and not the instrumental portion. This method determines 
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from 
stationary combustion sources. This standard may be obtained from 
https://www.asme.org or from the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) at Three Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016-5990.
    The EPA proposes to use ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination of Gaseous 
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transforn (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy,'' as an alternative to using EPA Method 320 under certain 
conditions and incorporate this alternative by reference. ASTM D6348-
03(2010) was previously determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with 
caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) 
and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct 
measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the 
caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. The voluntary 
consensus standard (VCS), ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous 
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transforn (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this 
time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the 
standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the conditions that 
must be met are defined in 40 CFR 63.7142(a)(2). This field test method 
employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary source 
effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and 
quantification of gaseous compounds. The ASTM D6348-12el standard was 
developed and adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM).
    The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), 
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' as 
an alternative to EPA Method 321 provided that the provisions in 40 CFR 
63.7142(a)(4) are followed. The EPA used ASTM D6735-01 for the 
determination of HCl in EPA Methods 26, 26A, and 321 from mineral 
calcining exhaust sources. This method will measure the gaseous 
hydrochloric acid and other gaseous chlorides and flurides that passes 
through a particulate matter filter. The ASTM D6735-01 standard was 
developed and adopted by the ASTM.
    The EPA proposes to use VCS ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), ``Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' as an alternative to 
EPA Method 18 only when the target compunds are all known, and the 
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 
should not be used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less 
than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. 
This field method determines the mass concentration of volatile organic 
hazardous air pollutants.
    The ASTM standards may be obtained from https://www.astm.org or from 
the ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office C700, West Conshohocken, 
Pennsylvania 19428-2959.
    The EPA proposes to use EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance, September 1997 as guidance for how a triboelectric bag leak 
detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and 
maintained. This document includes fabric filter and monitoring system 
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, set up, 
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.This 
document may be obtained from https://www.epa.gov of from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    While the EPA has identified another 10 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS 
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to 
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import 
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled 
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Lime Manufacturing 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this proposed 
rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of 
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review 
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime 
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the 
docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 19, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
 2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2), and revising 
paragraphs (h)(85), (h)(91), (h)(96), and (n)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
(Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for 
table 4 to subpart AAAAA.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform

[[Page 48735]]

Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.1571(a) and 63.7142(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    (91) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.670(j), 63.7142(b), and appendix A to this 
part: Method 325B.
* * * * *
    (96) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for Sec.  63.7142(a), 
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7113(d), 63.7525(j), 
63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).

Subpart AAAAA--[Amended]

0
 3. Section 63.7083 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 
and (b) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7083  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004, 
you must comply with the emission limitations no later than January 5, 
2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no 
later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004, 
then you must comply with the emission limitations for new affected 
sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have 
completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after 
startup, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, 
and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later 
than January 5, 2007, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (e)(1) If the start up of your existing, new, or reconstructed 
source occurs on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], then the compliance date for the revised 
requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.7090, 63.7100, 63.7112, 
63.7113, 63.7121, 63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 63.7142, and 
63.7143 and Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of 40 CFR 63, subpart AAAAA, 
published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register] for both new and existing sources is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE 
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (2) If the initial start up of your new or reconstructed source 
occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], then the compliance date for the revised requirements 
promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.7090, 63.7100, 63.7112, 63.7113, 63.7121, 
63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 63.7142, and 63.7143 and Tables 1, 
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of 40 CFR 63, subpart AAAAA, published on [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] is [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or the date of 
startup, whichever is later.
0
4. Section 63.7090 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7090   What emission limitations must I meet?

* * * * *
    (c) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], during periods of startup and shutdown you must 
meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) During startup you must fire your kiln with any one or 
combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic 
natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), or ultra-
low sulfur diesel (ULSD) until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 
degrees Fahrenheit.
    (2) Combustion of the primary kiln fuel may commence once the kiln 
temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.
    (3) Kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the 
atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a fabric 
filter (FF) must comply with the opacity operating limit in Table 2 in 
lieu of the particulate (PM) emission limits.
    (4) Kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the 
atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a wet 
scrubber must meet the scrubber liquid flow rate operating limit in 
Table 2 in lieu of the PM emission limits.
    (5) For kilns and coolers (if there is a separate exhaust to the 
atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with an 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP), the ESP must be turned on and 
operating at the time the gas stream at the inlet to the ESP reaches 
300 degrees Fahrenheit (five-minute average) during startup. 
Temperature of the gas stream is to be measured at the inlet of the ESP 
every minute.
    (6) You must keep records as specified in Sec.  63.7132 during 
periods of startup and shutdown.
0
 5. Section 63.7100 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), 
(d)(3), (d)(4)(iii), and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7100   What are my general requirements for complying with 
this subpart?

    (a) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission 
limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After 
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must be in compliance with the applicable emission 
limitations (including operating limits and work practices) at all 
times.
    (b) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the opacity 
and visible emission (VE) limits in this subpart at all times, except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], 
you must be in compliance with the applicable opacity and VE limits 
(including work practices) at all times.
    (c) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain your 
affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i). After 
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must always operate and maintain any affected source, 
including associated air pollution control

[[Page 48736]]

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 
general duty to minimize emissions does not require the owner or 
operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels 
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination 
of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used 
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.
    (d) * * *
    (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each 
emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the 
applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2 
to this subpart, respectively. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], your OM&M plan must 
address periods of startup and shutdown.
    (4) * * *
    (iii) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], ongoing operation and maintenance 
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (3), and (4)(ii). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], ongoing 
operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section and Sec. Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(ii), (3), and (4)(ii); and
* * * * *
    (e) For affected sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a 
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
0
 6. Section 63.7112 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (k)(3), 
paragraph (l) introductory text, and adding paragraph (m).


Sec.  63.7112   What performance tests, design evaluations, and other 
procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], each performance test must be conducted 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the 
specific conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. After [DATE 
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], each performance test must be conducted based on 
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating 
conditions) of the affected source and under the specific conditions in 
Table 4 to this subpart. Representative conditions exclude periods of 
startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance 
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record 
the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, 
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 
tests.
    (c) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], you may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], during startup and shutdown, you must 
follow the requirements in Sec.  63.7090(c).
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, but 
must meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 in 
appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter.
    (l) When determining compliance with the opacity standards for 
fugitive emissions from PSH operations in item 8 of Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of 
this chapter according to item 17 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in 
accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (m) After to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], for kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, 
the run average temperature must be calculated for each run, and the 
average of the run average temperatures must be determined and included 
in the performance test report and will be used to determine compliance 
with Sec.  63.7090(c)(5).
0
7. Section 63.7113 is amended by:
0
 a. Revising the introductory text to paragraph (d);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3) through (8) as paragraphs (d)(4) 
through (9);
0
 c. Adding new paragraph (d)(3);
0
 d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(7), the introductory text 
to newly redesignated paragraph (d)(8), and newly redesignated 
paragraph (d)(9); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (d)(10) and (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any 
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1) 
through (9) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record 
the output signal from the sensor.
* * * * *
    (7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated, 
operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter 
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, 
operated, calibrated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's 
written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating 
procedures must be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
    (8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways, 
according to section 5.0 of the EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag 
Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14):
* * * * *
    (9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging 
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted 
except as specified in the OM&M plan required by Sec.  63.7100(d). In 
no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or 
decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such 
adjustment follows a complete FF inspection that demonstrates that the 
FF is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the 
EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14). Record each adjustment.

[[Page 48737]]

    (10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
* * * * *
    (h) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], for kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, you 
must demonstrate compliance with the startup requirements in Sec.  
63.7090(c)(5) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through 
(5) of this section.
    (1) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate 
a CMS to record the temperature of the exhaust gases at the inlet to, 
or upstream of, the ESP.
    (2) The temperature recorder response range must include zero and 
1.5 times the average temperature established during your performance 
test according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7112(m).
    (3) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must 
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated 
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or alternate reference, 
subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (4) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature 
sensors must be verified at least once every three months.
    (5) You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the 
exhaust gases from the kiln and cooler, if applicable, at the inlet to 
the kiln and/or cooler ESP.
0
 8. Section 63.7121 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 
and 6 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from 
the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be 
reported according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7131.
* * * * *
    (d) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN Federal Register], consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
violations, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).
* * * * *
0
 9. Section 63.7130 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7130  What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial 
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, 
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii). Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION 
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent 
Notification of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in 
Sec.  63.7131(h).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.7131 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text.
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6).
0
 c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6).
0
 d. Revising paragraphs (d), (e) introductory text, and (e)(2).
0
 e. Adding paragraph (e)(12)
0
 f. Revising paragraph (f).
0
 g. Adding paragraphs (g) through (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7131   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
* * * * *
    (6) Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent compliance reports 
following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], if you had a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent 
with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in 
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there were no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit, operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE 
limit) that apply to you, the compliance report must include a 
statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations 
during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring 
systems (CMS), including CPMS, were out-of-control as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which 
the CMS were out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) that 
occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply 
with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report 
must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) 
and (d)(1) and (2) of this section. The deviations must be reported in 
accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.10(d) prior to [DATE 181 
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] 
and the requirements in Sec.  63.10(d)(1)-(4) after [DATE 180 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), and the corrective action 
taken.
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, work practice, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring 
at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the 
emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (11) of 
this section, except that after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] the semiannual 
compliance report must also include the information included in 
paragraph (e)(12) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *

[[Page 48738]]

    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    (f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit 
pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all 
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring 
report required by Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7 
to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required 
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit and work practice), submission of the 
compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report 
the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, 
submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any 
obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements 
to the permit authority.
    (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed 
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit 
a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. 
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI 
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph.
    (h) Performance Tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing 
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the 
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (i) of this section is CBI, 
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report or 
notification through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occured within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (j) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically 
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim 
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,

[[Page 48739]]

earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 
or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., 
large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
11. Section 63.7132 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7132   What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register], the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through 
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS 
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the 
records in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each 
startup and/or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject 
to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard 
applicable at other times.
    (ii) You must keep records of the date, time, cause and duration of 
each malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an 
applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the 
date, time, cause, and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the 
record must list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the 
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which 
the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method 
used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) For kilns and coolers equipped with an ESP, the average of 
the run average temperatures determined in accordance with Sec.  
63.7112(m) must be recorded.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.7133 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7133  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
13. Section 63.7140 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7140   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. When there is overlap 
between 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, 
as indicated in the ``Explanations'' column in Table 8, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA takes precedence.
0
14. Section 63.7141 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6) as paragraphs (c)(5) 
through (c)(7).
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c)(4).
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7141   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Approval of alternatives to the work practices in Sec.  
63.7090(c).
* * * * *
    (8) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.
0
15. Section 63.7142 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and 
(4);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2);
0
d. Revising newly designated paragraph (a)(4) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i), and (a)(4)(v);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and 
(b)(4);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (b)(2); and
0
g. Revising newly designated paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7142   What are the requirements for claiming area source 
status?

    (a) * * *
    (1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
    (2) As an alternative to EPA Method 320, ASTM D6348-12e1, 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 
(ii) of this section are followed:
    (i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
    (ii) In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the 
percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte 
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a 
compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than 
or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion 
for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that 
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the 
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test 
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: 
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)) / (%R) x 
100; or
* * * * *
    (4) As an alternative to EPA Method 321, ASTM Method D6735-01 
(Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous 
Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--
Impinger Method (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), provided 
that the provisions in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this 
section are followed.
    (i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of 
samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section 
11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009).
* * * * *
    (v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM 
Method D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) is conducted, and the percent 
recovery is

[[Page 48740]]

calculated according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01 
(Reapproved 2009).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) As an alternative to Method 320, ASTM D6348-12e1, Determination 
of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), 
provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section are followed:
    (i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D 6348-12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
    (ii) In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the 
percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte 
(Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a 
compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than 
or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion 
for a target compound, the test data are not acceptable for that 
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the 
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a 
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test 
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the 
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: 
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the Stack)) / (%R) x 
100;
    (3) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter; or
    (4) As an alternative to Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 
2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic 
Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/
MS) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), provided that the 
provisions of paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section are 
followed:
    (i) The target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010) as measurable;
    (ii) This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because 
their atomic mass is less than 35; and
    (iii) ASTM D6420 (Reapproved 2010) should never be specified as a 
total VOC.
* * * * *
0
 16. Section 63.7143 is amended by:
0
 a. Revising paragraph (3) under the definition of ``Deviation.''
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Emission limitation.''
0
 c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Shutdown'' and 
``Startup.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7143   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *

Deviation * * *

* * * * *
    (3) Prior to [Date 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register] fails to meet any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit or work practice) in this subpart during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is allowed by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, 
operating limit, work practice, or VE limit.
* * * * *
    Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins 
when feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation 
ceases.
* * * * *
    Startup means the time from when a shutdown kiln first begins 
firing fuel. Startup begins when a shutdown kiln turns on the induced 
draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. Startup ends 60 
minutes after the lime kiln generates lime product.
* * * * *
0
 17. Table 1 to subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows:

          Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits
 As required in Sec.   63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in
                the following table that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
             For . . .                              limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing lime kilns and their    PM emissions must not exceed 0.12
 associated lime coolers that did    pounds per ton of stone feed (lb/
 not have a wet scrubber installed   tsf).
 and operating prior to January 5,
 2004.
2. Existing lime kilns and their    PM emissions must not exceed 0.60 lb/
 associated lime coolers that have   tsf. If, at any time after January
 a wet scrubber, where the           5, 2004, the kiln changes to a dry
 scrubber itself was installed and   control system, then the PM
 operating prior to January 5,       emission limit in item 1 of this
 2004.                               Table 1 applies, and the kiln is
                                     hereafter ineligible for the PM
                                     emission limit in item 2 of this
                                     Table 1 regardless of the method of
                                     PM control.
3. New lime kilns and their         PM emissions must not exceed 0.10 lb/
 associated lime coolers.            tsf.
4. All existing and new lime kilns  Weighted average PM emissions
 and their associated coolers at     calculated according to Eq. 2 in
 your LMP, and you choose to         Sec.   63.7112 must not exceed 0.12
 average PM emissions, except that   lb/tsf (if you are averaging only
 any kiln that is allowed to meet    existing kilns) or 0.10 lb/tsf (if
 the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit   you are averaging only new kilns).
 is ineligible for averaging.        If you are averaging existing and
                                     new kilns, your weighted average PM
                                     emissions must not exceed the
                                     weighted average emission limit
                                     calculated according to Eq. 3 in
                                     Sec.   63.7112, except that no new
                                     kiln and its associated cooler
                                     considered alone may exceed an
                                     average PM emissions limit of 0.10
                                     lb/tsf.
5. All new and existing lime kilns  After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
 and their associated coolers        PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
 during startup and shutdown.        Federal Register], work practices
                                     in Sec.   63.7090(c).
6. Stack emissions from all PSH     PM emissions must not exceed 0.05
 operations at a new or existing     grams per dry standard cubic meter
 affected source.                    (g/dscm).
7. Stack emissions from all PSH     Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
 operations at a new or existing     opacity.
 affected source, unless the stack
 emissions are discharged through
 a wet scrubber control device.
8. Fugitive emissions from all PSH  Emissions must not exceed 10 percent
 operations at a new or existing     opacity.
 affected source, except as
 provided by item 9 of this Table
 1.
9. All PSH operations at a new or   All of the individually affected PSH
 existing affected source enclosed   operations must comply with the
 in a building.                      applicable PM and opacity emission
                                     limitations in items 6 through 8 of
                                     this Table 1, or the building must
                                     comply with the following: There
                                     must be no VE from the building,
                                     except from a vent; and vent
                                     emissions must not exceed the stack
                                     emissions limitations in items 6
                                     and 7 of this Table 1.

[[Page 48741]]

 
10. Each FF that controls           Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
 emissions from only an              opacity.
 individual, enclosed storage bin.
11. Each set of multiple storage    You must comply with the emission
 bins at a new or existing           limits in items 6 and 7 of this
 affected source, with combined      Table 1.
 stack emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
18. Table 2 of subpart AAAAA is amended by adding an entry for ``7'' to 
read as follows:

          Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
 As required in Sec.   63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in
                the following table that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
7. During startup and shutdown, each     After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE
 lime kiln and each lime cooler (if       OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
 there is a separate exhaust to the       IN THE Federal Register], meet
 atmosphere from the associated lime      the work practice requirements
 cooler) subject to an emission limit     in Sec.   63.7090(c).
 that is equipped with an add-on air
 pollution control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
19. Revise Table 4 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows:

                     Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
  As required in Sec.   63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to
                                                      you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            According to the
             For . . .                  You must . . .             Using . . .          following requirements .
                                                                                                  . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each          Select the location    Method 1 or 1A of appendix  Sampling sites must be
 associated lime cooler, if there    of the sampling port   A to part 60 of this        located at the outlet of
 is a separate exhaust to the        and the number of      chapter; and Sec.           the control device(s)
 atmosphere from the associated      traverse ports.        63.6(d)(1)(i).              and prior to any
 lime cooler.                                                                           releases to the
                                                                                        atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each          Determine velocity     Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,   Not applicable.
 associated lime cooler, if there    and volumetric flow    or 2G in appendix A to
 is a separate exhaust to the        rate.                  part 60 of this chapter.
 atmosphere from the associated
 lime cooler.
3. Each lime kiln and each          Conduct gas molecular  Method 3, 3A, or 3B in      You may use ASME PTC
 associated lime cooler, if there    weight analysis.       appendix A to part 60 of    19.10-1981 (2010)--Part
 is a separate exhaust to the                               this chapter.               10 \a\ as an alternative
 atmosphere from the associated                                                         to using the manual
 lime cooler.                                                                           procedures (but not
                                                                                        instrumental procedures)
                                                                                        in Method 3B.
4. Each lime kiln and each          Measure moisture       Method 4 in appendix A to   Not applicable.
 associated lime cooler, if there    content of the stack   part 60 of this chapter.
 is a separate exhaust to the        gas.
 atmosphere from the associated
 lime cooler.

[[Page 48742]]

 
5. Each lime kiln and each          Measure PM emissions.  Method 5 in appendix A to   Conduct the test(s) when
 associated lime cooler, if there                           part 60 of this chapter.    the source is operating
 is a separate exhaust to the                                                           at representative
 atmosphere from the associated                                                         operating conditions in
 lime cooler, and which uses a                                                          accordance with Sec.
 negative pressure PM control                                                           63.7(e) before [DATE 181
 device.                                                                                DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE Federal
                                                                                        Register] and Sec.
                                                                                        63.7112(b) after [DATE
                                                                                        180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE Federal
                                                                                        Register]; the minimum
                                                                                        sampling volume must be
                                                                                        0.85 dry standard cubic
                                                                                        meter (dscm) (30 dry
                                                                                        standard cubic foot
                                                                                        (dscf)); if there is a
                                                                                        separate lime cooler
                                                                                        exhaust to the
                                                                                        atmosphere, you must
                                                                                        conduct the Method 5
                                                                                        test of the cooler
                                                                                        exhaust concurrently
                                                                                        with the kiln exhaust
                                                                                        test.
6. Each lime kiln and each          Measure PM emissions.  Method 5D in appendix A to  Conduct the test(s) when
 associated lime cooler, if there                           part 60 of this chapter.    the source is operating
 is a separate exhaust to the                                                           at representative
 atmosphere from the associated                                                         operating conditions in
 lime cooler, and which uses a                                                          accordance with Sec.
 positive pressure FF or ESP.                                                           63.7(e) [DATE 181 DAYS
                                                                                        AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE Federal
                                                                                        Register] and Sec.
                                                                                        63.7112(b) after [DATE
                                                                                        180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                                                        PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                                                        RULE IN THE Federal
                                                                                        Register]; if there is a
                                                                                        separate lime cooler
                                                                                        exhaust to the
                                                                                        atmosphere, you must
                                                                                        conduct the Method 5
                                                                                        test of the separate
                                                                                        cooler exhaust
                                                                                        concurrently with the
                                                                                        kiln exhaust test.
7. Each lime kiln.................  Determine the mass     Any suitable device.......  Calibrate and maintain
                                     rate of stone feed                                 the device according to
                                     to the kiln during                                 manufacturer's
                                     the kiln PM                                        instructions; the
                                     emissions test.                                    measuring device used
                                                                                        must be accurate to
                                                                                        within 5
                                                                                        percent of the mass rate
                                                                                        of stone feed over its
                                                                                        operating range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Establish the          Data for the gas stream     The continuous pressure
 wet scrubber.                       operating limit for    pressure drop measurement   drop measurement device
                                     the average gas        device during the kiln PM   must be accurate within
                                     stream pressure drop   performance test.           plus or minus 1 percent;
                                     across the wet                                     you must collect the
                                     scrubber.                                          pressure drop data
                                                                                        during the period of the
                                                                                        performance test and
                                                                                        determine the operating
                                                                                        limit according to Sec.
                                                                                         63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Establish the          Data from the liquid flow   The continuous scrubbing
 wet scrubber.                       operating limit for    rate measurement device     liquid flow rate
                                     the average liquid     during the kiln PM          measuring device must be
                                     flow rate to the       performance test.           accurate within plus or
                                     scrubber.                                          minus 1 percent; you
                                                                                        must collect the flow
                                                                                        rate data during the
                                                                                        period of the
                                                                                        performance test and
                                                                                        determine the operating
                                                                                        limit according to Sec.
                                                                                         63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with a  Have installed and     Standard operating          According to the
 FF or ESP that is monitored with    have operating the     procedures incorporated     requirements in Sec.
 a PM detector.                      BLDS or PM detector    into the OM&M plan.         63.7113(d) or (e),
                                     prior to the                                       respectively.
                                     performance test.
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a  Have installed and     Standard operating          According to the
 FF or ESP that is monitored with    have operating the     procedures incorporated     requirements in Sec.
 a COMS.                             COMS prior to the      into the OM&M plan and as   63.7113(g).
                                     performance test.      required by 40 CFR part
                                                            63, subpart A, General
                                                            Provisions and according
                                                            to PS-1 of appendix B to
                                                            part 60 of this chapter,
                                                            except as specified in
                                                            Sec.   63.7113(g)(2).
12. Each stack emission from a PSH  Measure PM emissions.  Method 5 or Method 17 in    The sample volume must be
 operation, vent from a building                            appendix A to part 60 of    at least 1.70 dscm (60
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set                          this chapter.               dscf); for Method 5, if
 of multiple storage bins with                                                          the gas stream being
 combined stack emissions, which                                                        sampled is at ambient
 is subject to a PM emission limit.                                                     temperature, the
                                                                                        sampling probe and
                                                                                        filter may be operated
                                                                                        without heaters; and if
                                                                                        the gas stream is above
                                                                                        ambient temperature, the
                                                                                        sampling probe and
                                                                                        filter may be operated
                                                                                        at a temperature high
                                                                                        enough, but no higher
                                                                                        than 121 [deg]C (250
                                                                                        [deg]F), to prevent
                                                                                        water condensation on
                                                                                        the filter (Method 17
                                                                                        may be used only with
                                                                                        exhaust gas temperatures
                                                                                        of not more than 250
                                                                                        [deg]F).

[[Page 48743]]

 
13. Each stack emission from a PSH  Conduct opacity        Method 9 in appendix A to   The test duration must be
 operation, vent from a building     observations.          part 60 of this chapter.    for at least 3 hours and
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set                                                      you must obtain at least
 of multiple storage bins with                                                          thirty, 6-minute
 combined stack emissions, which                                                        averages.
 is subject to an opacity limit.
14. Each stack emissions source     Establish the average  Data for the gas stream     The pressure drop
 from a PSH operation subject to a   gas stream pressure    pressure drop measurement   measurement device must
 PM or opacity limit, which uses a   drop across the wet    device during the PSH       be accurate within plus
 wet scrubber.                       scrubber.              operation stack PM          or minus 1 percent; you
                                                            performance test.           must collect the
                                                                                        pressure drop data
                                                                                        during the period of the
                                                                                        performance test and
                                                                                        determine the operating
                                                                                        limit according to Sec.
                                                                                         63.7112(j).
15. Each stack emissions source     Establish the          Data from the liquid flow   The continuous scrubbing
 from a PSH operation subject to a   operating limit for    rate measurement device     liquid flow rate
 PM or opacity limit, which uses a   the average liquid     during the PSH operation    measuring device must be
 wet scrubber.                       flow rate to the       stack PM performance test.  accurate within plus or
                                     scrubber.                                          minus 1 percent; you
                                                                                        must collect the flow
                                                                                        rate data during the
                                                                                        period of the
                                                                                        performance test and
                                                                                        determine the operating
                                                                                        limit according to Sec.
                                                                                         63.7112(j).
16. Each FF that controls           Conduct opacity        Method 9 in appendix A to   The test duration must be
 emissions from only an              observations.          part 60 of this chapter.    for at least 1 hour and
 individual, enclosed, new or                                                           you must obtain ten 6-
 existing storage bin.                                                                  minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any     Conduct opacity        Method 9 in appendix A to   The test duration must be
 PSH operation subject to an         observations.          part 60 of this chapter.    for at least 3 hours,
 opacity limit.                                                                         but the 3-hour test may
                                                                                        be reduced to 1 hour if,
                                                                                        during the first 1-hour
                                                                                        period, there are no
                                                                                        individual readings
                                                                                        greater than 10 percent
                                                                                        opacity and there are no
                                                                                        more than three readings
                                                                                        of 10 percent during the
                                                                                        first 1-hour period.
18. Each building enclosing any     Conduct VE check.....  The specifications in Sec.  The performance test must
 PSH operation, that is subject to                            63.7112(k).               be conducted while all
 a VE limit.                                                                            affected PSH operations
                                                                                        within the building are
                                                                                        operating; the
                                                                                        performance test for
                                                                                        each affected building
                                                                                        must be at least 75
                                                                                        minutes, with each side
                                                                                        of the building and roof
                                                                                        being observed for at
                                                                                        least 15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.

0
20. Table 7 of subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows:

      Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
As required in Sec.   63.7131, you must submit each report in this table
                          that applies to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must      You must submit
    You must submit a . . .          contain . . .      the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report..........  a. If there are no      Semiannually
                                 deviations from any     according to
                                 emission limitations    the
                                 (emission limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit, work   Sec.
                                 practice, opacity       63.7131(b).
                                 limit, and VE limit)
                                 that applies to you,
                                 a statement that
                                 there were no
                                 deviations from the
                                 emission limitations
                                 during the reporting
                                 period;.
                                b. If there were no     Semiannually
                                 periods during which    according to
                                 the CMS, including      the
                                 any operating           requirements in
                                 parameter monitoring    Sec.
                                 system, was out-of-     63.7131(b).
                                 control as specified
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 a statement that
                                 there were no periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out-of-control
                                 during the reporting
                                 period;.
                                c. If you have a        Semiannually
                                 deviation from any      according to
                                 emission limitation     the
                                 (emission limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit, work   Sec.
                                 practice, opacity       63.7131(b).
                                 limit, and VE limit)
                                 during the reporting
                                 period, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(d);.

[[Page 48744]]

 
                                d. If there were        Semiannually
                                 periods during which    according to
                                 the CMS, including      the
                                 any operating           requirements in
                                 parameter monitoring    Sec.
                                 system, was out-of-     63.7131(b).
                                 control, as specified
                                 in Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                                 the report must
                                 contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(e); and.
                                e. Before [DATE 181     Semiannually
                                 DAYS AFTER DATE OF      according to
                                 PUBLICATION OF FINAL    the
                                 RULE IN THE Federal     requirements in
                                 Register], if you had   Sec.
                                 a startup, shutdown     63.7131(b).
                                 or malfunction during
                                 the reporting period
                                 and you took actions
                                 consistent with your
                                 SSMP, the compliance
                                 report must include
                                 the information in
                                 Sec.
                                 63.10(d)(5)(i). After
                                 [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
                                 DATE OF PUBLICATION
                                 OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                 Federal Register], if
                                 you had a startup,
                                 shutdown or
                                 malfunction during
                                 the reporting period
                                 and you failed to
                                 meet an applicable
                                 standard, the
                                 compliance report
                                 must include the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(c)(3)..
2. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER  Actions taken for the   By fax or
 DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL    event.                  telephone
 RULE IN THE Federal                                     within 2
 Register], an immediate                                 working days
 startup, shutdown, and                                  after starting
 malfunction report if you had                           actions
 a startup, shutdown, or                                 inconsistent
 malfunction during the                                  with the SSMP.
 reporting period that is not
 consistent with your SSMP.
3. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER  The information in      By letter within
 DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL    Sec.                    7 working days
 RULE IN THE Federal             63.10(d)(5)(ii).        after the end
 Register], an immediate                                 of the event
 startup, shutdown, and                                  unless you have
 malfunction report if you had                           made
 a startup, shutdown, or                                 alternative
 malfunction during the                                  arrangements
 reporting period that is not                            with the
 consistent with your SSMP.                              permitting
                                                         authority. See
                                                         Sec.
                                                         63.10(d)(5)(ii)
                                                         .
(4) Performance Test Report...  The information         According to the
                                 required in Sec.        requirements of
                                 63.7(g).                Sec.   63.7131
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
20. Table 8 of subpart AAAAA is revised to read as follows:

            Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
 As required in Sec.   63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                              the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Am I subject to this
             Citation                Summary of requirement         requirement?              Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)............  Applicability............  Yes.
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)................  Applicability............  Yes.
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9).........  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14).......  Applicability............  Yes.
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)................  Initial Applicability      Yes.....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.7081 and
                                    Determination.                                       63.7142 specify
                                                                                         additional
                                                                                         applicability
                                                                                         determination
                                                                                         requirements.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)................  Initial Applicability      Yes.
                                    Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)................  Applicability After        Yes.
                                    Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)................  Permit Requirements......  No......................  Area sources not subject
                                                                                         to subpart AAAAA,
                                                                                         except all sources must
                                                                                         make initial
                                                                                         applicability
                                                                                         determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4)............  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)................  Area Source Becomes Major  Yes.
Sec.   63.1(d)...................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.1(e)...................  Applicability of Permit    Yes.
                                    Program.
Sec.   63.2......................  Definitions..............  Yes.....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                         in Sec.   63.7143.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)...............  Units and Abbreviations..  Yes.
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2).........  Prohibited Activities....  Yes.
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5).........  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...............  Circumvention,             Yes.
                                    Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(2)............  Construction/              Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)................  Compliance Dates.........  Yes.

[[Page 48745]]

 
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4)............  Construction Approval,     Yes.
                                    Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)................  Applicability............  Yes.
Sec.   63.5(c)...................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)-(4)............  Approval of Construction/  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)...................  Approval of Construction/  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)(1)-(2)............  Approval of Construction/  Yes.
                                    Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)...................  Compliance for Standards   Yes.
                                    and Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5)............  Compliance Dates.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)................  Compliance Dates.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)............  Compliance Dates.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4).........  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)................  Compliance Dates.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(d)...................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).............  General Duty to Minimize   Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                    Emissions.                 DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], see Sec.
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    63.7100 for general
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             duty requirement.
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)............  Requirement to Correct     Yes before [DATE 181
                                    Malfunctions ASAP.         DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register]
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...........  Operation and Maintenance  Yes.
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)................  Startup, Shutdown          Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                    Malfunction Plan.          DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], the OM&M
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    plan must address
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             periods of startup and
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      shutdown. See Sec.
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       63.7100(d).
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)................  SSM exemption............  Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], for periods
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    of startup and
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             shutdown, see Sec.
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      63.7090(c).
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)............  Methods for Determining    Yes.
                                    Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3).........  Alternative Standard.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)................  SSM exemption............  Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], for periods
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    of startup and
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             shutdown, see Sec.
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      63.7090(c).
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)................  Methods for Determining    Yes.
                                    Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(h)(3)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)......  Opacity/VE Standards.....  Yes.....................  This requirement only
                                                                                         applies to opacity and
                                                                                         VE performance checks
                                                                                         required in Table 4 to
                                                                                         subpart AAAAA.
Sec.   63.6(h)(5) (ii)-(iii).....  Opacity/VE Standards.....  No......................  Test durations are
                                                                                         specified in subpart
                                                                                         AAAAA; subpart AAAAA
                                                                                         takes precedence.
Sec.   63.6(h)(5)(iv)............  Opacity/VE Standards.....  No.
Sec.   63.6(h)(5)(v).............  Opacity/VE Standards.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(h)(6)................  Opacity/VE Standards.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(h)(7)................  COM Use..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(h)(8)................  Compliance with Opacity    Yes.
                                    and VE.
Sec.   63.6(h)(9)................  Adjustment of Opacity      Yes.
                                    Limit.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)........  Extension of Compliance..  Yes.

[[Page 48746]]

 
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)...............  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...............  Extension of Compliance..  Yes.
Sec.   63.6(j)...................  Exemption from Compliance  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(a)(3).........  Performance Testing        Yes.....................  Sec.   63.7110 specifies
                                    Requirements.                                        deadlines; Sec.
                                                                                         63.7112 has additional
                                                                                         specific requirements.
Sec.   63.7(b)...................  Notification.............  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(c)...................  Quality Assurance/Test     Yes.
                                    Plan.
Sec.   63.7(d)...................  Testing Facilities.......  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)................  Conduct of Tests.........  Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], see Sec.
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    63.7112(b).
                                                               AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)............  Conduct of Tests.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(f)...................  Alternative Test Method..  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(g)...................  Data Analysis............  Yes.
Sec.   63.7(h)...................  Waiver of Tests..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)................  Monitoring Requirements..  Yes.....................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)................  Monitoring...............  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)................  Monitoring...............  No......................  Flares not applicable.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)-(3)............  Conduct of Monitoring....  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).............  CMS Operation/Maintenance  Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], see Sec.
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    63.7100 for OM&M
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             requirements.
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)............  CMS Spare Parts..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...........  Requirement to Develop     Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                    SSM Plan for CMS.          DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], no longer
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    required.
                                                               AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)............  CMS Operation/Maintenance  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)................  CMS Requirements.........  No......................  See Sec.   63.7121.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)........  Cycle Time for COM and     Yes.....................  No CEMS are required
                                    CEMS.                                                under subpart AAAAA;
                                                                                         see Sec.   63.7113 for
                                                                                         CPMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)................  Minimum COM procedures...  Yes.....................  COM not required.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)................  CMS Requirements.........  No......................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)............  CMS Requirements.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)............  Quality Control..........  Yes.....................  See also Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)................  Quality Control..........  Yes before [DATE 181
                                                               DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.8(e)...................  Performance Evaluation     Yes.                      See also Sec.   63.7113
                                    for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5).........  Alternative Monitoring     Yes.
                                    Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)................  Alternative to Relative    No......................  No CEMS required in
                                    Accuracy Test for CEMS.                              subpart AAAAA.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(g)(5).........  Data Reduction; Data That  No......................  See data reduction
                                    Cannot Be Used.                                      requirements in Sec.
                                                                                         Sec.   63.7120 and
                                                                                         63.7121.
Sec.   63.9(a)...................  Notification Requirements  Yes.....................  See Sec.   63.7130.
Sec.   63.9(b)...................  Initial Notifications....  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(c)...................  Request for Compliance     Yes.
                                    Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)...................  New Source Notification    Yes.
                                    for Special Compliance
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e)...................  Notification of            Yes.
                                    Performance Test
Sec.   63.9(f)...................  Notification of VE/        Yes.....................  This requirement only
                                    Opacity Test.                                        applies to opacity and
                                                                                         VE performance tests
                                                                                         required in Table 4 to
                                                                                         subpart AAAAA.
                                                                                         Notification not
                                                                                         required for VE/opacity
                                                                                         test under Table 6 to
                                                                                         subpart AAAAA.

[[Page 48747]]

 
Sec.   63.9(g)...................  Additional CMS             No......................  Not required for
                                    Notifications.                                       operating parameter
                                                                                         monitoring.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3).........  Notification of            Yes.
                                    Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4)................  .........................  No.
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6).........  Notification of            Yes.
                                    Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(i)...................  Adjustment of Deadlines..  Yes.
Sec.   63.9(j)...................  Change in Previous         Yes.
                                    Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)..................  Recordkeeping/Reporting    Yes.....................  See Sec.  Sec.   63.7131
                                    General Requirements.                                through 63.7133.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...............  Records..................  Yes.
Sec.   63.10 (b)(2)(i)...........  Recordkeeping of           Yes before [DATE 181
                                    Occurrence and Duration    DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                    of Startups and            PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                    Shutdowns.                 RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register]
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...........  Recordkeeping of Failures  Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                    to Meet a Standard.        DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], see Sec.
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    63.7132 for
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             recordkeeping of (1)
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      date, time and
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       duration; (2) listing
                                                               Register].                of affected source or
                                                                                         equipment, and an
                                                                                         estimate of the
                                                                                         quantity of each
                                                                                         regulated pollutant
                                                                                         emitted over the
                                                                                         standard; and (3)
                                                                                         actions to minimize
                                                                                         emissions and correct
                                                                                         the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..........  Maintenance Records......  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).......  Actions Taken to Minimize  Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                    Emissions During SSM.      DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], see Sec.
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    63.7100 for OM&M
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             requirements.
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii).....  Recordkeeping for CMS....  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).........  Records for Relative       No.
                                    Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..........  Records for Notification.  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...............  Applicability              Yes.
                                    Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)..................  Additional CMS             No......................  See Sec.   63.7132.
                                    Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...............  General Reporting          Yes.
                                    Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...............  Performance Test Results.  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...............  Opacity or VE              Yes.....................  For the periodic
                                    Observations.                                        monitoring requirements
                                                                                         in Table 6 to subpart
                                                                                         AAAAA, report according
                                                                                         to Sec.   63.10(d)(3)
                                                                                         only if VE observed and
                                                                                         subsequent visual
                                                                                         opacity test is
                                                                                         required.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...............  Progress Reports.........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)............  Periodic Startup,          Yes before [DATE 181      After [DATE 180 DAYS
                                    Shutdown, Malfunction      DAYS AFTER DATE OF        AFTER DATE OF
                                    Reports.                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL      PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal       RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].                Register], see Sec.
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS    63.7131 for malfunction
                                                               AFTER DATE OF             reporting requirements.
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)...........  Immediate Startup,         Yes before [DATE 181
                                    Shutdown, Malfunction      DAYS AFTER DATE OF
                                    Reports.                   PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register]
                                                              No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                               AFTER DATE OF
                                                               PUBLICATION OF FINAL
                                                               RULE IN THE Federal
                                                               Register].
Sec.   63.10(e)..................  Additional CMS Reports...  No......................  See specific
                                                                                         requirements in subpart
                                                                                         AAAAA, see Sec.
                                                                                         63.7131.
Sec.   63.10(f)..................  Waiver for Recordkeeping/  Yes.
                                    Reporting.
Sec.   63.11(a)-(b)..............  Control Device and Work    No......................  Flares not applicable.
                                    Practice Requirements.
Sec.   63.12(a)-(c)..............  State Authority and        Yes.
                                    Delegations.
Sec.   63.13(a)-(c)..............  State/Regional Addresses.  Yes.
Sec.   63.14(a)-(b)..............  Incorporation by           No.
                                    Reference.
Sec.   63.15(a)-(b)..............  Availability of            Yes.
                                    Information and
                                    Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16.....................  Performance Track          Yes.
                                    Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48748]]

[FR Doc. 2019-18485 Filed 9-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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