# ( Martin Marietta

# :M:a:g:n:e:S=ia=s:p:e:C:i:a:lt:ie:s:,=L:L:C===========**==~** 755 Lime Road, Woodville, OR 43469 USA Telephone: (419) 849-4200 Fax: (419) 849-4246 

### May 11,2007 Mr. James A. Orlemann, P.E. Assistant Chief

- DAPC Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency Lazarus Government Center P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, OR 43216-1049


### RE: OAC 3745-17-07 SIP Exemption Requestfor Martin Marietta Comments on OEPA's April 11th 

### Interested Parties DRAFT DearMr. Orlemann: OnApril 11th, 

### 2007, the Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency issued an "InterestedParties" notice containing draft language thatproposed arule exemption for MartinMariettaMagnesia Specialties, LLC ("Martin Marietta") from the requirements ofO.A.C. §3745-17-07(A) during the startup and shutdown oflime producing kilns at MartinMarietta's Woodville, Ohio facility. In accordance withthe enclosed copies ofprior submittals regarding this matter on October 2nd
, 

### 2006; August 24th
, 

### 2006; March 21

## sf, 2006; December 15 th, 

### 2005; and October 14 th, 

### 2005; MartinMariettais submitting the following comments onthe proposed draft. Ourexperience has confirmedthatthe 600°F operating temperature specificationprovidedby the manufacturer ofourelectrostatic precipitator (ESP) is applicable during both shutdown and startup operations. Thus, Martin Mariettarequests that Ohio EPA addthe following language to the proposedrule: "(iv) The shutdown ofany kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), afterthe temperature ofthe exhaust gases from the kilnhas dropped below six hundred (600) degrees Fahrenheit atthe inlet ofthe ESP." 

### Please contactme ifyou have questions regarding this submittal orneed additional information onthe proposed SIP exemption. Thankyou for yourcontinuing efforts onthis importantmatter. Sincerely, f\

- 

### , 

# JO!Green Environmental Engineer

MMMS 5-11-07 Comments on OEPA's 3745-17-07 Rulemaking DRAFT.doc

### (

( 

## \ Ene!. ec: Lee Burkleea, Ohio EPA-DAPC (via Tom Kalman, Ohio EPA-DAPC e-mail) Don Waltenneyer, Ohio EPA-NWDO Melanie Ray, Ohio EPA-NWDO Joe Reilly, MMMS Woodville Tim Tawney, MMMS Woodville Yvonne Bailey, Esq., MMM Raleigh

MMMS 5-11-07 Comments on OEPA's 3745-17-07 Rulemaking DRAFT.doc,/ (



## ( Martin Marietta :M:a: 

## 9 :n:e=S=ia=s:p=e:C:i=a:lt=ie=s:,

# =L=L=C=============~ 755 Lime Road, Woodville, OR 43469 USA Telephone: (419) 849-4200 Fax: (419) 849-4246 

### May 11,2007 

### Mr. James A. Orlemann, P.E. Assistant Chief

- DAPC Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency Lazarus Government Center P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, OR 43216-1049


### RE: OAC 3745-17 Interested Parties Rulemaking Proposal - MMMS Comments
DearMr. Orlemann: OnApril 11 th
, 

### 2007, the Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency issued an "InterestedParties" notice containing draft language thatproposed amendments ofthe subject OAC §3745-17 rules. Martin Mariettais submitting the following comments onthe proposed rulemaking, based on recent questions about apparentdiscrepancies between the Ohio EPA's definitions, specifically the "maximum capacity ofa source" specification, and the terminology accepted by the USEPA under 40 CFRPart 63 AAAAA (Lime MACT) for using "representative operating conditions". Therefore, we are enclosing copies of"Comments ofthe National Lime Association (NLA)" regarding this subject (as setforth onpage 25) andthe corresponding USEPA "Public Comments and Responses" (showing acceptance ofthe NLA suggestions onpage 3-49) in August of2003. In addition, we believe that a review ofthese documents may reveal other inconsistencies that would warrantfurther revision ofthe proposed OEPA rulemaking package, potentially reducing some ofthe differences between the Ohio EPA requirements and USEPA regulatory protocols. Please contactme ifyou have questions regarding this submittal or need additional information onthese "InterestedParty" comments. Thank you for considering these important concerns. Sincerely, 

# JOrGreen Environmental Engineer Enc!'

MMMS Comments on OEPA's 3745-171P Rulemaking Proposal of4-11-07.doc

## ( / (

## ( cc: Paul Braun, Ohio EPA-DAPC (via Bob Rodanbosi, Ohio EPA-DAPC e-mail) Don Waltermeyer, Ohio EPA-NWDO Melanie Ray, Ohio EPA-NWDO Joe Reilly, MMMS Woodville, OR Tim Tawney, MMMS Woodville, OR Yvonne Bailey, Esq., MMM Raleigh, NC Arline Seeger, NLA, Arlington, VA

MMMS Comments on OEPA's 3745-17 IP Rulemaking Proposal of4-11-07.doc

## ( (

### ( PM LIMIT FOR SCRUBBER-EQUIPPED KILNS 1. A subcategory for scrubber-equipped kilns should be established to eliminate the proposed rule's increased emissions ofHCl and S02. 1 EPA has requested comment on whether a subcategory for scrubber-equipped kilns should be established. In particular, EPA is interested in whether a subcategory should be established in orderto avoid the environmentally counterproductive effects of subjecting scrubber-equippedkilns to the proposed PM limit of0.12 Ib/tsf. NLA submitted information to EPA this Fall explaining that establishing a single particulate standard ofO.12lb/tsffor all lime kilns will force lime companies to replace scrubbers withbaghouses, because existing scrubbers cannot meet the limit. NLA pointed out that because scrubbers more readily achieve removal ofacid gases thanbaghouses, replacing scrubbers with baghouses on lime kilns will result in increased emissions of 

### 802 and Hel by 2,900 and 1,800 tpy, respectively (see Figure 1 & DocketItemNo II-D228). 

### Figure 1: Changes in Emissions from Scrubber-Equipped Kilns: Single PM Standard 10000.-----------------------------, 2894 1823

3 10 +----**100+---~** Q) 1000**+---~** Ul 

# l

LQ) 0- Ul c: .9 

### (

Increased 502 Decreased Metal HAPs Increased HCI
In response, EPA has suggested that this outcome is avoidable because (1) existing scrubbers can be replaced with high efficiency venturi scrubbers to meet the standard, and (2) lime plants will choose this option because high efficiency venturi scrubbers have

I The terms "scrubber-equipped kilns" includes kilns vented through a mine chamber (Le., Linwood Mining & Mineral's kilns).

### (



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
lower capital costs, "and in some cases" lower annual costs than baghouses (preamble, at 78,059). However, as describedbelow, these assertions are incorrect. EPA's andNLA's analyses show thathigh efficiency venturi scrubbers are more expensive than baghouses In 5 ofthe 6 cases (ormodel kilns) the Agency examined, annualized costs for high efficiency venturi scrubbers are much higherthan for baghouses (Docket ItemNo. II-F-7). Only for Model Kiln B, whichrepresents 5 kilns producing 4% ofthe lime made in scrubber-equippedkilns, is the cost ofa baghouse greaterthan for a high efficiency venturi scrubber (see Attachment A). EPA's cost analysis assumes that a 35-inch (inches ofwater) gas streampressure drop across a scrubberis needed to achieve the 99.94% removal efficiency required to meet the 0.12lb PMltsfstandard (DocketItem. No. II-C-148). Attachment B compares EPA's cost analysis with a costproposal recently prepared by a scrubbermanufacturerto install a scrubberwith a 35-inch gas pressure drop at a lime plant. The capital costs in the proposal are more thantwice whatEPA estimated, and the annual costs are more than 25% higher.2 AttachmentB also shows that the scrubbervendor's estimates are very similar to those previously submittedby NLA. The scrubbermanufacturer's estimated costreaffirms NLA's positionthat a scrubberwith a 35-inchpressure drop costs substantially more than EPA estimates. If these more accurate costs were incorporated into EPA's cost analyses, the muchhigher cost ofhigh efficiency scrubbers relative to baghouses would be evenmore pronounced than shown in AttachmentA. A scrubberwith a 35-inch gas streampressure drop likely cannotmeet the proposed PM limit In the above-referenced costproposal, the manufacturer's guarantee thatthe scrubberwill meet the proposed PM limit of0.12 lb PMltsfcontains an importantproviso

-- that less than one percent ofthe particles to be removed by the scrubber are less than one micrometerin diameter. Particle size distribution is one ofthe key factors in determining the static pressure drop needed to achieve the proposed PM limit. EPA assumes thatthe average mass diameter ofparticles in lime kiln gas effluent is 2 microns. This assumption is based on a single reference indicating that 50% of fugitive lime dusts are less than 2 microns (DocketItemNo. II-B-126). It is unclear why data concerning fugitive dust emissions are relevant to a discussion oflime kiln (combustion process) emissions.

2 The proposal was prepared for a rotary lime kiln that corresponds to EPA Model Kiln D (165,00 tpy) currently equipped with a scrubber. The lime company thatrequested the proposal will submitthe proposal to EPA underthe protections ofconfidential business information. The lime company received a second bid, but itis for a system with only 22 inches ofpressure drop and therefore is not analogous to the 35-inch system analyzedby EPA. Page 2

### (



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation

More importantly, the capability ofa scrubber is dependent on both the mass median diameter and the characteristics ofthe particle size distribution. The significance ofthese factors is illustrated by Global Stone's recent experience in installing a scrubber at its Chemstone plant. In 2001, a scrubbervendor indicated to Global Stone that its scrubbercould meet an outlet dust loading of0.01 gr/dscf(roughly comparable to the proposed PM limit) for its calcimatic kiln. The vendor's representation was based, in part, onparticle size data measured at the plant that indicatedthatthe mass median diameter of the PM distributionranged from 2.3 to 3.0 micrometers (aerodynamic)

-- values similar to the 2 micrometervalue used in Docket ItemNo. II-B-126. The size distribution data indicated that 8% to 20% ofthe particulate mass was less than 0.3 micrometers, and 16% to 28% ofthe particulate mass was less than 0.5 micrometers (aerodynamic). A permit was obtained in reliance on the vendor's representation. However, Virginia DEP subsequently agreed with Global Stone thatthe permit mustbe modifiedbecause the scrubber can only reduce outlet dust loading on a continuous basis to roughly 0.04 gr/dscf. This lowerthan expected PM removal was caused by volatilization and homogeneous nucleation ofpotassium chloride particles in the gas stream entering and passing through the scrubber. As described in Attachment C, homogeneous nucleation generates particles in the 0.1 to 0.5 micrometer size range. As particle size decreases below 1 micrometer, inertial impactionbecomes decreasingly effective. Above 0.1 micrometers, Brownian displacement is ineffective. In the range between 0.1 and 0.5 micrometers, neither ofthese two main particle capture mechanisms relied upon in wet scrubber design is very effective. Forthis reason, the 0.1 to 0.5 micrometer size range has been termed the "difficult-to-control" range. Potassiumis a natural trace constituent ofmost limestone and fossil fuels. However, the variability ofpotassium levels in limestone supplies throughout the U.S. has neverbeen quantified. In addition to potassium, other alkali metals naturallypresent in limestone could participate in volatilization-homogeneous nucleation processes to create 0.1 to 0.5 micrometerparticles. The well-documented submicrometerPM emissions from wet scrubbers at kraft pulp mill lime kilns having high sodium levels in the kiln feed illustrates a similar condition. The Chemstone example calls into serious questionEPA's conclusion that a scrubberwith apressure drop of35 inches can meet the proposed PM limit of0.12 lb/tsf. 3 In particular, itunderscores the importance ofknowing the full particle size distribution and the fraction ofthe total PM inlet concentration that is in the 0.1 to 0.5 micrometer size range. It is not enough to rely simply on amass mean ormass median diameter as

3 Although the pressure drop ofChernstone's scrubber is 22 inches, increasing the pressure drop to 35 inches would stilI not achieve a 99.94% removal efficiency. Venturi scrubbers designed to remove particles in the range of0.1 to 0.5 micrometers usually operate at static pressure drops above 70 in. W.C. (water column) and often above 100 in. W.C. Even with such extreme static pressure drop levels, removal efficiencies in excess of99% are difficult to achieve. The highly optimistic performance chart (with no supporting test data) provided on page 91 ofreference I cited in Docket Item No. II-B-126 indicates that the Global calcimatic scrubberwould not achieve the 0.12 Ib PMltsflevel even ifthe static pressure drop across the scrubberwere at least 50 in. W.C. Page 3

### (



## (

\. Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
statedby EPA. Similarly, the proviso in the above-described proposal

-- that less than 1% ofthe kiln effluent mustbe less than one micrometer in order for the vendorto guarantee the scrubber's performance

-- underscores the importance ofparticle size distribution in designing a scrubber. Absent data showing that lime kiln gas effluent is composed ofparticles virtually devoid ofparticles in the 0.1 to 0.5 micrometerrange, EPA has no basis for concluding that a scrubberwith a 35-inchpressure drop can meet the proposed PM limit. NLA believes that the weight ofthe evidence shows lime plants will choose baghouses to comply with the PM limit, and that therefore HCl and S02 from lime plants will increase by 1,800 and 2,900 tpy, respectively

-- unless a subcategory is created. This outcome will occurbecause (l) high efficiency venturi scrubbers are more costly than baghouses, and (2) it is higWy doubtful that such scrubbers can meet the standard. In additionto the environmental reasons for creating a subcategory for scrubberequippedkilns, EPA has also requested comments on the operational and legal reasons for creating a subcategory for scrubbers. NLA has provided this information in several submissions to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and FlexibilityAct (SBREFA) Panel.4 These submissions are incorporatedby reference into these comments. 

### 2. Small businesses are most at risk if

### a subcategory is not established, and the increase in metal HAPs from creating the subcategory would be insignificant. More than40% ofthe kilns at lime plants ownedby small businesses use wet air pollution control devices (APCDs). Although replacing wet APCDs withbaghouses will decrease PM emissions at these plants somewhat, acid gas emissions will likely increase significantly. Forexample, comments submittedby Linwood Mining & Minerals explain thatreplacing the plant's wet PM control system with a baghouse will increase HCl by over 20 tons/year, while decreasing metal HAPs by 481 pounds/year (DocketItemNo. IIB-116, Appendix C). The annualized cost ofupgrading all scrubbers is $9.45 million, based on the distribution ofkilns andEPA's estimate oftotal annualized costs (Docket ItemNo. II-B127). EPA predicts that upgrading these kilns will reduce HAP metals by 3.1 tpy. Therefore, the cost effectiveness ofthis aspect ofthe rule is $3.0 million/ton ofmetal HAP.s Linwood's comments illustrate that this $3 million estimate for the lime industry in general significantly understates the costs ofthe proposedrule for small lime businesses. ForLinwood, the proposedrule is predictedto reduce metal HAPs from kiln stackgases by 481 pounds/year, with an attendant cost of$9.3 million/ton metal HAPs removed (DocketItem No.II-B-116, Appendix C).

4 NLA's January 15,2002 Technical Comments, pgs 13-16; February 19,2002 Presentation, slides 37-51;

and March 5, 2002 Supplemental Technical Comments, pgs 6-8.
5 Although EPA assumes that 30% oflime plants are area source, andtherefore wouldbe exempt from the

rule, EPA has providedno supportfor this assumption. However, applying this 30% assumption to scrubber-equippedkilns wouldreduce the removal ofmetal HAPs attributed to upgrading scrubberequippedkilns to 2.2 tpy. Page 4

## (

I\ Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation 

### 3. The PM emission limit for scrubber-equipped kilns should be 0.6 lb/tsf. EPA has requested comment on what the MACT floor PM limit should be for a subcategory for scrubber-equipped kilns, as well as data on actual emissions from the kilns used to base the MACT floor (preamble at 78,058). EPA's initial conclusion is that the MACT floor PM limit should be 0.6Ib/tsf (Id.) NLA agrees that the MACT floor for scrubber-equipped kilns should be 0.6Ib/tsf because the median ofthe 12% most stringentpermit limits for these kilns is 0.6Ib/tsf. Attachment D provides a list ofpermit limits for scrubber-equippedkilns from which the median was calculated. Turning to actual emissions, Method 5 data confIrms that 0.6 lb/tsfis a "reasonable approximation ofachievable performance" by the "top performing" scrubber-equipped kilns, taking into consideration long-term variability in performance. Forthe eight scrubber-equipped kilns with permit limits at orbelow 0.6 lb PMltsffor which Method 5 data are available, average actual emissions during the compliance test were 0.461b PMltsf, with emissions for single runs ranging up to 0.64 lb PM/tsf(see Attachment E).


### PM LIMIT FORNEW KILNS 1. 

### The PM emission limit for new lime kilns should be 0.12 

### lb/tsf, the same as the emission limit for existing kilns. For new sources, the proposed PM limit is 0.1 lb/tsf, and is based on the permit limit for one ofCutlerMagner's ESP-equipped kilns. CutlerMagner agreed to this permit limit in orderto avoid being subjectto EPA's New Source Review regulations. EPA has concluded that Kiln 3's PM limit is achievable on a continuous basis for all new kilns based on the Method 5 testresults summarized in the table below:
lb 

### PM/ton Stone Feed Kiln No. Test Date Run 1 

### Run 2 

### Run 3 Avera2e 3 Oct. 20, 1978 0.080 0.078 0.081 0.079 3 July 19, 1983 0.089 0.084 0.100 0.091 (Source: Docket Item No.II-B-103, Attachment lA). Such reliance on such a small amount ofdata conflicts with EPA's recognition that 3-hourtestresults arejust a snapshot in time, and should not be used as the basis for establishing an enforceable standard. EPA expressly rejected such an approach when establishing the MACT floor for existing kilns:

Page 5

### ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation Simply taking the average ormean ... ofthe emissions data
.. would not account for the inherent variability ofperformance ofwell-designed and operated emission controls, since individual emissions tests are based on short durations of sampling, typically 3 hourtests (because ofthe absence ofPM continuous emissions monitors) and, thus, we would be required to extrapolate these "snapshot" data to ascertain long-term achievable performance (preamble, pg. 78,057). EPA's approach seems particularly inappropriate in this case because, during one ofthe runs (run #3 on July 19, 1983), PM emissions were exactly at the proposed limit. Kiln 3 has a 3-field ESP. CutlerMagner also has a 4-field ESP-equipped kiln. It was built in 1996, andhas a higherPM limit (0.121b/tsf) than Kiln 3. It is a fair inference that this higher PM limit reflects Wisconsin DNR's realization that 0.10 Ib/tsfmay not achievable on a continuous basis. Indeed, Method 5 data from Kiln 4 includes two I-hour runs during which PM was above 0.10 Ib/tsf(Docket Item No. II-B-103).6 NLAbelieves that this data shows that 0.10 Ib/tsfis not continuously achievable by lime kilns. Accordingly, EPA should not establish a separate PM limit for new lime kilns.
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR SCRUBBER-EQUIPPED KILNS 1. The rule should allow the use ofscrubber pump amperage and other indirect measures ofliquid flow rate. The proposed rule at Table 4 (§ 8 and 9) requires that gas streampressure drop and liquid flow rate be measured continuously. EPA selected these two parameters because they are the scrubber operating parameters "most often monitored" andprovide an indication ofthe scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well (preamble, at 78062). It's unclearwhetherEPA's statement regarding the widespreaduse ofsuchparameters is based on monitoring practices at lime plants, or at source categories in general. In any event, the informationbelow indicates that the statement is inaccurate regarding liquid flow rate. Turning first to the commercial lime industry, Attachment F demonstrates that mostpermits for lime plants do notrequire that liquid flow rate be measured directly (e.g., with a flow meter). As recognized by EPA, "water flow meters are more susceptible to malfunctions andrequire more frequent inspections to ensure they are operating properly" compared to devices that measure flow rate indirectly (Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Guidance Document, atpage 2-24). Most ofthe lime plants with

. scrubber-equipped kilns do not have flow-related permit limits. Forthe 8 lime plants that

do, permits for 5 ofthemprovide the option that scrubberpump amperage canbe

6 EPA notes that "the company speculates thatthe higherlevels during one ofthe runs may have been due to excessive rapping in the final field ofthe ESP." Ifexcessive rapping occurs during the very limitedtime auring which compliance test are performed, itmay occurduring othertimes ofthe year as well. Page 6/



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation monitored instead offlow rate (see Attachment F). 7 Huron Lime's Title V permit language is representative ofthese plants, which includes a limit on liquid flow rate and the option ofmeasuring scrubberpump amperage instead "which is directly proportional to flow rate." One reason why liquid flow rate is not a common parameter at lime plants is that the NSPS for lime plants requires that liquid supply pressure (not flow rate) be measured. We recognize that, for some systems, monitoring liquid supply pressure may also be problematic because the parameter is not indicative ofscrubberperformance when nozzles become plugged. Forthis reason, we are not advocating that a rigid requirement to monitor liquid supply pressure be imposed, but only to point out that liquid supply pressure is monitored more frequently than liquid flow rate
-- EPA's statedreason for requiring thatthe latterparameterbe monitored. Turning to monitoring practices outside the lime industry, a review ofthe monitoring examples in EPA's CAM guidance documentreinforces the view that measuring liquid flow rate is not widespread. The guidance documentpresents four example CAM plans for scrubber-equippedkilns used to control PM (facilities B, H, N and S). Significantly, none ofthe plants includes liquid flow rate among the parameters to be monitored. Instead, indirect measures ofliquid flow rate (e.g., scrubber exhaust temperature) are allowed. Basedon the above, we recommend that Table 4 be revised to specify that liquid flow rate canbe measured directly (e.g., with a flow meter) or indirectly (via scrubber pump amperage, liquid supply pressure, exit temperature, etc.). 

### 2. The rule should allow the use ofparameters other than gas pressure drop if pre-approval from the permitting authority is obtained. Although gas streampressure drop is usually required to be monitored at scrubber-equippedkilns, this is not appropriate for all kiln types. Forexample, for double shaftkilns, scrubberpressure drop is measurable only during the fuel firing cycle, returning to zero during the reversing cycle. 8 For this reason, ArizonaDEQ agreed in June 2002 that establishing a limit for scrubberpressure drop in Chemical Lime's Title V permit for its double shaftkiln at the Douglas plantwould be ill-advised because pressure drop is not a good indicator ofthe scrubber's performance. Accordingly, like the MACT standard for lime kilns at Pulp and Papermills, the lime MACT shouldbe revised to allow the use ofparameters other than gas pressure drop ifpre-approval from the state permitting agency is obtained.

7 Carmeuse's Millersville plant; Graymont's Bellefonte plant; Huron Lime's plant; MercerLime's plant; and National Lime & Stone's plant. S Fuel is fired in one shaftwhile exhaustgases are used to preheatthe second shaft. Afterthe prescribed burning period, fuel is discontinued, pressure is relieved on the shaft that contained fuel, and the cycle is reversed with fuel being fired in the shaft that was originally preheated and exhaust gases exiting the shaft thatwas originally being fired. This cycle can be repeated as often as every eightminutes with a reversing cycle ofless than one minute. Page 7

### (



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation



### 3. A single excursion from operating parameters recorded during a 3-hour compliance test should not constitute aviolation. The proposedrule at Table 2 (§2) requires that the 3-hourrolling average liquid flow rate and gas streampressure drop levels be determined during eachperformance test and subsequently maintained at or above these levels. A violation occurs ifthe 3-hour rolling average ofthese parameters is below the 3-hourrolling average readings for these parameters measured during the mostrecentperformance test. By contrast, for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure, a violation underthe NSPS does not occurunless the parameterreading is greaterthan 30 percentbelow the rates established during the performance test (40 CFR §60.343(e». Thus, for example, if the 3-hour average for gas pressure drop recorded during the compliance test is 10 inches, a violation ofthe NSPS does not occuruntil the pressure drop is below 7 inches. The NSPS kilns are the lime industry's top performers, and their monitoring regime shouldbe the benchmark against which monitoring underthe MACT rule is prescribed. The conceptthatpermitterms shouldbe based onmore than 3 hours oftest data is reaffIrmed in the Agency's CAM guidance document, which was updated as recently as September2000: In many cases historical monitoring data, in addition to parameter data collected during compliance tests, are useful oreven necessary for establishing indicator ranges. Typically, compliance tests are ofshort duration; three 

### I-hrtestruns, for example. Use ofonly 3 hours ofparameterdata may notbe sufficientto fully characterize parametervalues during normal operation (CAM document, atpg 2- 26). Similarly, the preamble to the lime MACT cautions against developing enforceable standards based on 3-hour compliance tests: Simply taking the average ormean. .. of the emissions data
.. would not account for the inherent variability ofperformance ofwell-designed and operated emission controls, since individual emissions tests are based on short durations of sampling, typically 3 hourtests ... and, thus, we would be required to extrapolate these "snapshot" data to ascertain long-term achievable performance (preamble, pg. 78,057). Just as a 3-hour compliance testprovides insufficient data to base an emissionlimit, it also is too short a timeframe onwhich to base an operating limit. In none ofthe above-referenced example CAM plans for scrubbers does the Agency base apermitlimit on the 3-houraverage reading that occurred during a compliance test. By example, for Facility B, a "15 percentbuffer" was addedto the average scrubber outlettemperature recorded during the performance test "to account for
Page 8i \



### ( , Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation variability among the data" (Appendix A.2, pg. A-30). Similarly, for Facility S, a differential pressure ofgreaterthan 10 inches in the water column (W.C.) was selected as the permit limit, even though, overthe course ofnine hours ofcompliance tests (three M. 5 tests), the three-hour average pressure drop was 12 in. W.C.

--- again, about a 15 percentbuffer was provided (Appendix A.I7, pg. A. 17-5). Gas pressure drop readings during actual compliance tests at lime plants underscore why such "buffers" are needed. Attachment G contains gas pressure drop readings and concurrentPM test data for three kilns. For each ofthem, gas pressure drop during one ormore I-hourruns was below the 3-hour average. Under EPA's proposed approach, these readings below the 3-hour average would constitute a violation. Accordingly, Table 2 should be revised to allow a reasonable "buffer" between the permit limit and the 3-hour average recorded during the compliance test. We recommend 30 percent, as reflected in the NSPS, because it represents the monitoring being performedby the industry's top performers. Alternatively, like the Pulp and Paper MACT, the rule should specify that a violation ofthe standard does not occurunless 6 or more 3-hour average parametervalues are recorded outside the established range within the 6 month reporting period. In either case, rather than restrict the parametervalues used to establish the operating permit limit to those recorded during the mostrecent performance test, the rule should allow the use ofparametervalues recorded during any performance test during which compliance with the PM limit was achieved. To do otherwise unnecessarily eliminates data that is highly useful to characterize long-term variability in parameterreadings for well designed and operated scrubbers. Furthermore, because the rule provides no acceptable tolerance to account for inherentprocess and control system variability and parametermeasurement error, plant operators may need to conduct a series ofperformance tests to determine the minimum pressure drop and liquid flow rate levels that will assure compliance for each set of operating conditions used for a particularkiln. Results for these tests are not available until post-test laboratory analyses are completed. Therefore, the rule should provide an exemption from the PM emission limits during these test periods.
4. The accuracy criteria in Table 4 

### (§ 8, 9, 13, and 14) for devices used to measure operating parameters should be deleted. The proposed rule at Table 4 and 

### § 63.71 13(b) & (c) include accuracy and minimum tolerance criteria, respectively, for measurement devices, as summarized in the table below:Parameter Accuracy Minimum Tolerance (Table 4) (§ 63.7113(b) &(c)) Liquid Flow rate 1% 2% Gas Stream 1% 0.5 inch in water column for Pressure drop gauges, or 1% for transducers
Page 9

### (



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation

Based on areview ofrecent MACT rules, the lime MACT is unique because it includes both accuracy and minimum tolerance criteria for measurement devices. For example, within the lasttwo months, MACT rules have beenproposed for Iron and Steel Foundries (67 Fed. Reg, 78,309), Primary Magnesium Refining (68 Fed. Reg 2,983), and Plywood and Composite WoodProducts (68 Fed. Reg. 1,317). None ofthese rules specifies accuracy criteria, and all contain the same tolerance criteria as summarized in the above chart. EPA has offered no explanation for the proposed accuracy criteria in Table 4. "Accuracy" is concerned with whethermeasurements are close to the "true value." However, the purpose ofparametric monitoring in the lime MACT is to observe changes in the value ofa parameter relative to what was recorded during the performance test. Sometimes this is referredto as precision, orrepeatability ofresults obtained from using a measuring device. Itis the precision ofa device that is important in the context ofthe lime MACT rule, not its accuracy. Accordingly, the 1% accuracy criteria should be deleted from the rule.


### MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FORKILNS WITH DRYAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES 

### 1. The proposed requirements in 

### § 63.7113(d)(1) and (e)(l) thatbag leak detectors (BLDs) and particulate monitoring devices (PMDs) be certified

### by the manufacturer to be capable ofdetecting PM at orbelow 10 mg/m3 

### should be deleted because no specifications exist on which to base the certification. The proposed certificationrequirement offers no assurance that a BLD orPMD is a reliable indicator ofPM at orbelow 10 mg/m3 because there are no procedures or specifications for conducting tests to make this determination. For example, the rule does not address whethertests ofthe actual device are required, orunder what conditions such tests are to be conducted. How are other factors that affectBLD orPMD response such as measurementprincipal, flow velocity, actual and aerodynamic particle size, particle size distribution, particle density, dielectric constants, effluent conditions, etc., taken into account in this certification? Are the tests to be performed for each instrument orfor a particularmodel? Is the certification a one-time test ormust itbe repeatedperiodically? Can the certificationbe based simply on thejudgment ofthe instrument developer without.conducting any tests at all? Furthermore, there are no means available to the lime plant operatorto verify claims made by the BLD or PMD vendor ormanufacturerregarding measurement sensitivity, or any design orperformance characteristic. By contrast, an extensive series ofrequirements exist for continuous opacity monitors (COMs), and associated technical procedures exist that are well understoodby manufacturers, industrial users, EPA, state and local agencies, state field inspectors and others. Numerous technical specifications

Page 10

## (

I , \ Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
and regulations, as well as checks and balances have been incorporated into this mature monitoring technology. For COMs in the United States, these include:

• ASTM D6216-98 "Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance withDesign and Performance Specifications." This industry consensus standard includes nineteen design (section 6) and performance (section 7) requirements as well as detailed technical test procedures for each specification including tests, recordkeeping and manufacturer certification requirements. These procedures "are sufficiently detailed to support the manufacturer's certification and to facilitate independent third party evaluations (ifdesired) ofthe procedures" (section 5.4).

• EPA Performance Specification 1 (PS-l), which includes requirements for selecting measurement locations, optical path orientation requirements, and field performance tests that mustbe performed at the time the instrument is installed and "certified" including clearpath calibration and zero alignment, calibration errortests, response time tests, and zero andupscale calibration drift tests to be performed during an 168-hour Operational Test Period. PS-I incorporates by reference (in section 8.2) the ASTM specifications described above.

• EPA has published monitor-specific audit procedures for more than 20 years, most recently: "Performance Audit Procedures for Opacity Monitors" April 1992 EPA 450/4-92-010. These procedures provide for field inspection of COMs by both agency and industry representatives and provide quantitative performance checks relative to known calibration attenuators ("filters".) Because such specifications have notbeen developed for BLDs orPMDs, the certificationrequirement in proposed § 63.7113(d)(l) and (e)(I) shouldbe deleted. Lime plant operators can only exercise reasonable care in the selection ofparticularBLD or PMD devices. Lime plant operators cannotbe responsible for the design orperformance ofthese systems. 

### 2. The requirements in §63.7113(d)(6) and (e)(6) thatBLDs and PMDs be "installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations" 

### should be revised to cross-reference "operating procedures" (notrecommendations), and provide lime plants with the flexibility to use alternate procedures wherejustified in the plant's OM&Mplan. In the absence ofindustry-based consensus (orEPA) specifications, consideration ofthe manufacturer's specifications and recommendations is a good place to start. However, there certainly will be applications where the manufacturer's procedures or recommendations may notbe appropriate or where abetter approach can be used. As experience is gained in the application ofthese devices, the regulated users (plant
Page 11

# ( Comments of the NationalLimeAssociation operators) are best able to detennine whatprocedures to use for their facilities. Therefore, §63.7113(d)(6) and (e)(6) shouldbe revised to require adherence to the manufacturer's written specifications and operating procedures (ratherthan "recommendations") except where otherprocedures are determined to be more appropriate and are described andjustified in the plant's operations, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan. 

### 3. COMs should be retained as a monitoring option because they are sensitive enough to detect changes in fabric filter performance at concentrations corresponding to the proposed PM limit and, unlike BLDs, are subjectto specifications that enable third party evaluation oftheir performance. The purpose ofthe monitoring requirementis to detectbag failures and to provide an indication of"relative changes inparticle mass loading" (i.e., PM emissions) (preamble, at 78,062). COMs have beenused for this purpose for many years at lime plants. Actual COM data acquired at lime kilns with high efficiency filters demonstrate that COM data are appropriate and effective for detecting gradual changes in fabric filter performance overtime. EPA has suggested that BLDs are preferable to COMs because BLDs are more sensitive. But, as explained above, no specifications exist onwhich to base a manufacturer's claimthat its BLD is ultra-sensitive. COMs, on the otherhand, have two attributes needed to assure compliance with the PM standard: the capability ofdetecting changes in fabric filter performance at concentrations corresponding to the proposed PM standard, and specifications to ensure that the COM is doing itsjob. A COM's sensitivity depends on the path length (i.e. internal duct or stack diameter at the installed measurement location). The longerthe optical path length, the more sensitive the measurement. For one-meterpath lengths, a COM's sensitivity is known to be 10 mg/m3,9 i.e., the same sensitivity as proposed for BLDs. All lime kilns currently equippedwith COMs have stack diameters (or optical lengths) greaterthan one meter. Thus, these COMs are capable ofmeeting the sensitivity requirementproposed for BLDs. The preamble states that COMs are "generally considered good "catastrophic" control equipment indicators using opacity generally above levels greaterthan 10% opacity" due to measurementuncertainties encountered in monitoring lower levels of opacity (preamble, pg 78,063). EPA asserts that uncertainties in measurement accuracy below 10% opacity result from the following: (1) unavailability ofcalibration attenuators [i.e., filters] for opacity levels below 6 percent; (2) minimum full scale range of80 percent opacity required ofCOMS in PS-1; and

9 Handbook on CEMs forNon-Criteria Pollutants EPA/625/R-97/00l, April 97, section 3.2.2 (pg 47).
Page 12(



# ( Comments of the NationalLimeAssociation (3) error associated with calibration error allowances, zero and upscale drift specifications, and mandatory drift adjustmentlevels, and imprecision associated withthe allowed compensation for dust accumulation (preamble, at 78,063). However, the above sources ofmeasurementuncertainty are not as significant as EPA suggests. To begin with, filters are available for opacity levels below 6 percent. About ayear ago, EPA purchased a series oflow-level calibration attenuators (3, 6 and 8% opacity) for a round-robin evaluationby the ASTM Low-Level Opacity Task Group. Low-level filters have been sold for at least five years by CalCheck, the leading supplier ofCOMS audit equipmentin the United States. Regarding PS-l's minimumrange requirement of80 percent, Section 1.3 ofPS-l states, "Atyour option, you the source owneror operator, may selectto establish a reduced full scale range ofno less than 50 percent opacity instead ofthe 80 percent as prescribed in section 3.5." The applicability section ofPS-1 supplies a further indication thatEPA's abovelisted concerns withmeasurementuncertainty are overstated. Section 1.3 ofPS-1 states thatthe requirements apply to sources with standards less than 10% opacity, "taking into account (through statistical procedures or otherwise) the uncertainties associated with opacity measurements." We recognize that EPA is participating in an ASTM-led effort to develop appropriate standards for measuring opacity at sources with standards below 10%. However, EPA would certainly not continue to apply enforceable performance specifications to these sources in the meantime ifitbelieved that COM measurement uncertainty is so impaired. In any event, ourunderstanding is that those who have voiced concerns about measurementuncertainty at low opacity levels would agree that, at worst, the factors listedby EPA introduce atotal bias (measurementinaccuracy) of3 to 4% opacity. Although the presence ofbias makes any determination ofabsolute opacity inaccurate, it has no affect on the ability ofa COMS to detect changes in opacity at a partic"!llar facility

-- and hence changes in control equipmentperformance overtime. Detecting relative changes in mass loading is all that BLDs are capable ofdoing (preamble at 78,062). COMS are more than adequate to detect changes in the opacity level necessary to detect minor variations in fabric filter or ESP performance well before catastrophic failures occur. 

### 4. COMs should be retained as a monitoring option because requiring only BLDs would create unnecessary & 

### duplicative monitoring. The Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule requires that, ifa COM is required under the Clean Air Act or state or local law, it must be used to satisfy the requirements ofthe CAM rule (40 CFR section 64.3(d)). Several CAA rules and permits

-- NSPS for commercial kilns (Subpart HH), State Implementation Plans, NSR permits, and Title V

Page 13Comments ojtheNationalLimeAssociation pennits

-- require CaMs for lime kilns. For such kilns, CaMs cannot be removed. Thus, requiring BLDs orPMDs would result in duplicative monitoring. 

### 5. The opacity standard for lime kilns should be 15 percent.



### ( Although EPA has proposed an opacity standard of 15 percent, ithas requested comment on what an appropriate MACT floor opacity limit shouldbe for lime kilns (preamble, 78,062). The range EPA is considering is between 10 and 15 percent (Id.). As reflected in the preamble, NLA has already submittedinfonnation to EPA on PM limits for the 6 top-performing kilns. These kilns have opacity limits of 15%, except for CutlerMagner's kiln no. 3, which has a 20% opacity limit. Also, as notedby EPA, NLA has submitted opacity data from one ofthe top perfonning kilns (BlackRiver, kiln 4) that shows that the kiln's opacity oftenranges between 10 to 15% (see Feb 19 presentation to SBREFA panel, slides 65 and 66). Additional examples ofopacity data in the range of 10% to 15% from kilns with low PM limits and low actual emissions are providedin Attachment H. 10 In September2002, EPAprepared a summary ofopacity data for selected kilns (DocketItemNo. II-B-125). The document states that "tested opacity" for three kilns was zero, andwas 0.9. for a fourth kiln. Thedocument neglects to mention thatthe data was not obtained from COMs, butratherfrom visible emission observations (VEO) using EPA Method 9. As summarized in Attachment I, these data are notreliable for establishing an opacity standard for lime kilns because most ofthe observations were made underpoorviewing conditions (i.e., overcast orcloudy skies), andwere collected for extremelybriefperiods oftime (18 minutes for 3 kilns, and one hour for the fourth kiln). EPA Method 9 recognizes that the accuracy ofVEOs is significantly affected by viewing conditions, particularly luminescence and color contrastbetween the plume and background. Method 9 states: Studies ofthe theory ofplume opacity and field studies have demonstrated that a plume is most visible and presents the greatest apparent opacity whenviewed against a contrasting background
....Under conditions presenting a less contrasting background, the apparent opacity ofa plume is less and approaches zero as the color and**luminescenc~** contrast decrease toward zero. As a result, significant negative bias and negative errors canbe made when a plume is viewedunder less contrasting conditions.

10 Western Lime's Eden Kiln I is an EPA-designated ''top performer." Graymont's Kiln 3 at Cricket Mountain has apermit limit of0.135 Ib PM/tsfandM.5 testresults of0.043 PM/tsfbased on an 10/28/96 test. Graymont's Kiln 4 at CricketMountain has apermitlimit of0.162 Ib PM/tsfandM.5 testresults of 0.02 PM/tsfbased on an 6/15/98 test. Chemical Lime's Apex Kiln 4 has apermit limit of0.2 Ib PM/tsfand M.5 testresults of0.05 Ib PM/tsfbased on an 11/19/97 test. Page 14( 

### \ Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
Most ofthe YEO data cited in the docket was collected during poorviewing conditions. The extent oflow bias in this data cannot be detennined, but it likely to be significant. The resulting data is thus not reliable for standard-setting purposes. Furthennore, EPA acknowledges thatperfonnance test data are a "snapshot" in time, and are not sufficient to represent variability ofperfonnance and not appropriate for use is setting standards (preamble, pg 78,057). The opacity data for lime kilns obtained from CaMs that NLA has submitted to the Agency demonstrates that variability in opacity canbe significant. Examination of COM data shows thatboth the average values and nature ofexcursions to higher levels vary significantly. Despite best efforts, some sources ofvariation are beyond the control ofthe operator. These include changes associated with varying stone feed and fuel chemistry, and varying mechanical properties such as crystal size and friability ofthe stone as quarrying operations move to new areas ofthe stone reserve. Even for a particular facility, variations in opacity cannotbe characterized by examining a few hours or days, much less a few minutes ofVEO data obtained during aparticulate perfonnance test. In summary, the data NLA has previously submitted, together with the supplemental data in Attachment H, demonstrate that a 15% opacity standardis warranted. NLA believes thatpromulgating an opacity limit lower than 15% would be unlawful because such a standard cannot be achieved by some ofthe kilns used to establish the PM emission MACT floor. 

### 6. The rule should specify a time period during which opacity readings greater than 15% are not considered a violation. Even when best efforts are implemented for the bestperforming sources, there will be opacity excursions above the prescribed limit. This is reflected in the Pulp and PaperMACT for lime kilns, which specifies (l) a time period overwhich opacity readings greater than 20% are a violation ofthe PM standard (i.e., an enforceable standard), and (2) a time period overwhich opacity readings greater than 20% indicate that a problemmay exist with the baghouse and that it shouldbe examined (i.e., a "corrective action" trigger). Based on the time frames in the Pulp & PaperMACT, and the proposed opacity limit of 15% inthe lime MACT, NLA proposes that the final rule specify the following:

• PM violation: opacity readings greaterthan 15% for more than 6% ofthe operating time within any quarterly period
• Corrective action trigger: the average of 10 consecutive 6-minute averages is greaterthan 15% opacity. However, recognizing thatEPA has notresponded favorably to this suggestion in the past, another suggestion is based on 

### § 60.7(d)(l) ofEPA's General Provisions for New Sources which provides for streamlinedreporting when excess emissions are less than 1 percent ofthe total operating time for the reporting period. Implicit in this
Page 15Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation provision is the recognition that sources cannotbe in compliance all ofthe time. Accordingly, at a minimum, the proposed lime MACT should state that opacity readings greaterthan 15% for less than 1% ofthe reporting period are not consideredto be a violation.

7. EPA should clarify that only COMS installed, relocated, or substantially refurbished after February 6, 2001 must comply with the version ofPS-l revised on August 10, 2000. The proposedrule at 

### § 63.7114 (g) states that each COMs used to monitor an air pollution control device mustbe installed, maintained calibrated and operated "according to PS-l ofAppendix B to Part 60 ofthis chapter." PS-l was revised on August 10, 2000, and applies to COMs installed, relocated or substantially refurbished afterFebruary 6, 2001. Many COMS at lime plants were certified to meet the PS-l requirements in effect atthe time ofinstallation. Due to the new testprocedures and requirements included in ASTM D62l6-98

-- adoptedby reference within PS-l

-- it is impractical and cost prohibitive to remove these units from service for several months and return them for testing to the COM manufacturer. The costto re-certify a single monitorwould exceed the cost ofa new monitor due to the testregime specifiedin the ASTM standard. Accordingly, the preamble to the fmal rule should clarify that only COMS installed, relocated, or substantially refurbished afterFebruary 6, 2001 must comply with the version ofPS-l revised onAugust 10, 2000. 8. PM CEMS should notbe required in the lime MACT because EPA has no data on which to establish an achievable CEM-based PM limit. EPA believes there is sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on lime kilns (preamble, pg 78,062). The sole basis for this statement is a reference to revisions to PS11 proposed on December 12, 2001. Numerous technical problems were raised in comments submitted to EPA in response to these proposedrevisions. The comments explain that EPA's proposed approach is cumbersome, overly expensive, and unsupported by its own data. We understand that EPAplans to promulgate revisions to PS-ll soon that, according to EPA EMC representatives, will make it much easierto implement. When these regulations are made available to the public, this assertion canbe evaluated. EPA has requested commenton how to establish a CEM-basedPM standardfor lime kilns. The relation ofa PM CEMS-based emission limit to the proposed PM limit musttake into account (a) the accuracy andprecision ofthe reference method, (b) the accuracy andprecision ofthe CEMS relative to the reference method, (c) procedures to extrapolate emissions to levels ofthe standard, (d) procedures to convert emissions from monitored parameters to the units ofthe standard, (e) exemptions to exclude transient periods or othernon-representative conditions as well as start-up shut down, and

Page 16

### (



## ( Comments of the NationalLimeAssociation malfunctions, 

### (f) averaging period(s), and (g) enforcementpolicy, along with numerous other factors. The inherent variations in lime kiln emissions must also be taken into account in developing aPM CEMS based limit. These variations are due to many factors including type oflime kiln, fuels and fuel combinations, feed material variations, process conditions, control equipmentperformance (long and shortterm effects), and type of product manufactured. All ofthese factors and sources ofvariation must be taken into account to determine the level ofthe standard(s), the appropriate averaging period, and thus the relationship to the proposed limit. There are no data on which to base a PM CEMS based limit. 

### 9. Method 9 should be allowed for positive pressure baghouses. The proposed rule requires that kilns with positive pressure baghouses be monitored with eitherBLDs or COMs. EPA's guidance document for BLDs recognizes thatthis would be very costly, stating that the document does not apply to this type of baghouse (BLD Guidance Document, pg 2). COMs are evenmore costly. Austin White Lime, a small business, illustrates the severe hardship ofthe lime MACT. Its positive-pressure baghouse has eight compartments. Underthe proposedrule, each compartmentwould have to have a BLD. The company's Title V permit allows Method 9 monitoring for the baghouse,just like lime kilns subject to the Pulp & Paper MACT. The proposed rule should be revised to allow Method 9 monitoring. 

### 10. COMs should be retained as an option for ESPs because the alternative proposed monitoring methods are unproven for ESPs. The proposed rule lists three monitoring options for ESP-equippedkilns to demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM limit: COMs, PM detectors, and parametric monitoring (i.e., monitoring ofcurrent and voltage). PM detectors are analogous to certainbag leak detectors (BLDs), and using them on ESPs is problematic for the reasons described above for baghouse-equipped kilns. OtherBLDs (triboflow, and electro dynamic instruments) cannot be used due to static electrical charges. Regarding the parametric monitoring option, the proposedrule at Table 2 (§3) requires that the 3-hourrolling average current and voltage to each field be determined during eachperformance test and subsequently maintained at or above these levels. A violation occurs ifthe 3-hourrolling average ofthese parameters is below the 3-hour rolling average measured during the most recentperformance test. As explained in CutlerMagner's comments to the SBREFA Panel, the proposed approach is flawed because ESPs are often over-designed, such that operating at or above the voltage levels measured during the performance test is not needed to maintain compliance with the proposed PM limit. For example, one ofCutlerMagner's ESPs is capable ofmeeting the proposed limit with only three fields. A fourth field was built in
Page 17

### (



## (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation

case any ofthe fIrst three experienced a failure. For such an ESP, ifone ofthe fIelds records a low voltage, it does not signifythat the PM standardhas been exceededbecause the entire fIeld couldbe de-energized and the ESP would still meet the standard (see DocketItem No. II-B-116, Appendix C).


### STONE HANDLING OPERATIONS 

### 1. The terms "raw material processing" or "material processing operation (MPO)" should be replaced with the term "processed stone handling." In response to comments submittedby NLA and recommendations by the SBREFA Panel, EPA agreed to notregulate stone handling operations in the quarry, relying on the cement MACT as aprecedent. Forcementplants, the fIrst unit subjectto regulation is referred to as the "raw material storage bin," with raw material being stone, sand, clay or othermaterials used as kiln feed. At lime plants, only one ingredient is used to make lime: processed limestone (i.e., stone that has been crushed, screened and/or sized such that it is ready for feed to the kiln). NLA recommends that the term "raw material" not be used in the lime MACT because it couldbe construed as referring to unprocessed (i.e., raw orpre-processed) stone, Accordingly, for example, in the applicability section ofthe rule at §63.7082, the rule wouldbe changed as follows: (g) The fIrst emissionunit in the sequence ofMPG processed stone handling operations thatis subjectto the subpart is the raw materialprocessed stone storage bin located immediately before the kiln. 

### 2. The definition of"storage bin" in 

### § 63.7143 should be revised to clarify that bins are manmade enclosures used to store processed stone feed for the kiln. The proposed defInition ofstorage bin is as follows: "A facility for storage (including surge bins) ofmaterial priorto further processing orloading." OnApril 5, 2002, EPA amended the cementMACT to add the following
. defInition: "Bin means a manmade enclosure for storage ofraw materials
..." The purpose ofthe amendmentis to clarify that storage piles are not subjectto the rule. Correspondingly, this clarity is needed in the lime MACT. Piles should notbe subjectto the lime MACT because an 

### "000 floor" does not exist for these units (see January 15, 2001 NLA comments to SBREFA Panel, Attachment G). Similarly, we recommend that "storage bin" in the lime MACT be defIned as follows: "A manmade enclosure for storage ofprocessed limestone priorto its use as lime kiln feed." 

### 3. The rule should not require the use ofproposed Methods 203A, 203B, and/or 203C to measure opacity from fugitive sources.

Page 18

### (



## (

( Comments of the NationalLimeAssociation
The proposed opacity limit of 10% for fugitive sources is based on Method 9,6- minute averages. 11 EPA has requested comment on whetherproposedMethods 203A, 203B and/or 203C are more suitable than Method 9 to measure opacity from these sources (preamble, at 61,640). The preamble does not give any suggestion as to why Method 9 is unsuitalJ1e. Nor does it specify how Methods 203A,B, or C wouldbe used and what the corresponding opacity limit wouldbe. Methods 203A, B, and C were proposed onNovember 22, 1993, and impose different, and generally shorter averaging times than Method 9. 12 The rulemaking record contains no information demonstrating the feasibility ofcomplying with the 10% opacity limit with an averaging time less than 6 minutes. Absent such information, EPA has no basis for requiring the use ofMethods 203A,B or C in the lime MACT to measure opacity from fugitive sources. 4. Section 63.7120(b) should be revised to clarify that periodic (not continuous) monitoring is required for stone handling units. Table 6 ofthe proposedrule sets forth that stone handling operations are generally subjectto monthly VE testing. 13 However, proposed § 63.7120(b) states that "you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the emissionunit is operating." This language is located in a section ofthe proposed rule entitled "Continuous Compliance Requirements." To avoid confusion, we recommend that § 63.7l20(b) be revised as follows:

"
... you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals, as specified in Table 6) at all times that the emission unit is operating."
AREA SOURCE DETERMINATIONS 1. The bias and precision criteria in §63.7142(a)(3)(iii) for HCI test results using ASTM Method D6735-01 should be deleted. The preamble e)(plains thatEPA's impinger-based Method 26 cannot be used to demonstrate that aplant is an area source because the method generates results that may

11 According to Table 1(5), the opacity limit for fugitive emissions is 10%. Table 3(4) states the averaging time is 6 minutes using Method 9 for the initial compliance determination.

12 Proposed Method 203A is identical to Method 9, exceptthe averaging period canbe shorterthan that of Method 9. It also contains aprocedure onhow to deal with fugitive emissions. Method 203B is like Method 203A, except it deals with time-exception rules (allowed exceedances for some period oftime). Method 203C is like Method 203A, except it deals with instantaneous limitation (neverto exceed) rules. It requires a I-minute average, using readings at either5-second or 15-secondintervals.

13 Although continuous parametric monitoring is required for scrubbercontrolledprocessed stone handling, we are unaware ofany processed stone handling controlledby scrubbers.
Page 19

## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
be biased low (i.e., understates actual emissions). To ensure that lime plants are not requiredto use costly and complexFTIR fortesting HCl, NLA sponsored the development ofan impinger-based method thatresolves EPA's concerns with the bias of Method 26-derived data. In orderto receive ASTM's approval ofthe method, both the bias and precision oftest datausing the impinger-based method were examined, as explained below. To evaluate bias, the ASTM committee used an analyte spike recovery test. Analyte spiking entails adding a known amount ofanalyte (HCl) to a sample ofactual gas. The "spiked" sample is analyzedusing the same procedure as for the unspiked gas. By comparing the results, the analyst can verify that the sampling system (e.g, filters and sampling lines) can transport the analyte (HCl) from the probe to the impingers. After evaluating impinger-based test data, ASTM Committee D22 on Sampling and Testing of Atmospheres concluded that the method (now known as ASTM Method D 6735-01) has a "statisticallyinsignificantbias at sources with effluent concentrations ofHClless than 10 ppm (v) dry" (ASTM Method Section 14.2.1). To assess the impinger-based method's bias, the target spike recovery for the tests was between 70 and 130% ofthe spike. I4 47 of48 runs were within thatrange. It should be noted that the purpose ofthe ±30% target recovery was to validate the method

- and not as acceptance criteria for all subsequenttests using the method. To validate the impinger-based method's precision (i.e., the ability ofthe method to get close to the same answer eachtime in repeat measurements onthe same material), the consistency ofHCl results betweenpaired test runs was examined. IS Results from 48 paired sampling runs were evaluated by ASTM. These results show that the method is able to achieve a relative standard deviation (RSD) between 15 to 38% for HCI for effluent concentrations ofless than 10 ppm (v) dry. (ASTM Method, section 14.1.1) This more than satisfies EPA's precision criteria for method validation at40 C.F.R. Part 63, section 6.3.1.2, which states that the RSD mustbe less than 50%. EPA's Proposed Criteria for Valid HCI TestResults The proposed rule at §63.7142(a)(3)(iii) would require lime plants to conduct paired test runs and analyte spiking in accordance with the optional procedures for determining test-specific precision andbias in the ASTM method. Furthermore, the,rule would deem HCl testresults as (1) unacceptably biased ifthe spike recovery is greater than ±30% ofthe concentration ofthe spike and (2) unacceptably imprecise ifthe difference (relative standard deviation orRSD) between paired-train testresults is greaterthan 20% ofthe mean.

14 Validation ofTesting ofthe DraftASTM ImpingerMethod for Measuring Gaseous Chloride Emissions fromMineral Calciners atMississippi Lime (Oct. 2000) and Chemical Lime (Nov. 2000)(Attachment 1)

15 Paired runs consist oftwo impingertrains operated simultaneously atthe same sampling location.
Page 20

### (



# (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation The ProposedBias Criterion Should be Deleted, or at Least Revised to Invalidate Only Results That are Biased Low. Analyte spiking is a complexprocedure, as evidenced by the failure by EPA's contractors to perform it correctly at most ofthe Agency-sponsored FTIRtesting oflime plants. 16 Thus, analyte spiking should notbe imposed unless there is a valid basis for questioning the bias ofa test method's results. As noted above, the ASTM determined thatMethod D 6735-0I has a "statisticallyinsignificant bias at sources with effluent concentrations ofHClless than 10 ppm (v) dry." Accordingly, lime plants should not be required to validate conclusions ofthe ASTM Committee with eachHCI'test. Furthermore, even ifthere is a legitimate basis for concernregarding bias, for the purpose ofensuring that a lime plant is an area source, only testresults that are biased excessively low should be invalidated. Therefore, at most, testresults shouldbe invalidated only ifthe spike recovery is less than 70% ofthe concentration ofthe spike. Also, as discussed in comments submitted by Bison Engineering, ifanalyte spiking is required, EPA should confirmthatthe three-run testrequirement in the ASTM method is satisfied with two non-spiked runs and a third spike run. The ProposedPrecision Criterion Should be Deleted. As noted above, the reason why ASTM Method D 6735-01 was developed was to address EPA's concern with the bias ofMethod 26 (not its precision).I7 In any event, the above-referenced NLA-sponsored field validation ofthe method shows thatthe method can meet EPA's precision criteria for method validation at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, section 6.3.1.2, which states thatthe RSD mustbe less than 50%. However, without explanation, the proposed rule would impose amuch more stringentprecision test (i.e., RSD of20%). Nowhere in the ASTM method is a numeric criterion for RSD specified. 18 Furthermore, this criterionis extremely difficult to meet for stack gases with low HCI concentrations. At low HCI concentrations, a 20% RSD criterion allows for almost no variation between the paired trains. For example, if measured HCI concentration is 0.9 ppm, a 20% criterion allows for only a fraction ofa ppm difference betweenpairedtrains. As HCI concentrations increase, the allowable difference betweenpairedtrains would be several ppm.

16 "Spiking was conducted at the lime plants with Hel concentrations below 10ppmboth before and after the tests, and thus there were 14 opportunities (7 locations; pre/post test) to conduct spiking correctly. Figure 1 shows that EPA complied with the prescribed spiking levels at only one location (the Redland plant)." PetitionerNational Lime Association's Supplemental Non-Binding Statement ofIssues, pg 10 (Dec. 27, 1999) (Attachment K).

17 As explained in the preamble to the proposed cementMACT rule, EPA is concerned that M.26 understates actual HCl emissions by a factor of3 to 25 (63 Fed. Reg. 14,196).
18 Although section 14.2. ofASTM Method D 6735-01 states that the bias ofthe impingermethod is ±20%, this has nothing to do with the method's precision. Page 21

## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation

Because the precisiOli criterionhas nothing to do with ensuring the accuracy or bias ofdata generatedby the ASTM method -- EPA's stated reason for disallowing the use ofMethod 26

-- lime plants shouldnotbe required to conductpairedruns in orderto demonstrate that testresults satisfy the 20% RSD criteria. Not only is there no basis for the 20% criteria, but it is extremely difficult to meet at plants with very low HCI concentrations. A fmal reason to delete both the proposedprecision andbias criteria is EPA's continuedpractice ofallowing source categories to use Method 26 data. For example, as recently as January 22,2003, EPA proposed to allow the use ofMethod 26 to demonstrate compliance with the HCI emission limit in the Primary Magnesium Refming MACT (68 Fed. Reg. 2970).19 In several submissions to the Agency, NLA has voiced its concern that the commercial lime industry is being unfairly singled outto meet unreasonably difficult HCI testrequirements.20 Even within the lime MACT itself, EPA's position on the validity ofMethod 26 data is inconsistent, because the Agency has concluded thatMethod 26 data alone can be used to determine that lime kilns at sugarplants are area sources (DocketItemNos. II-B-44 & 81), butnot commercial lime kilns. Thus far, EPA has not supplied a reasoned response to NLA's concerns about these inconsistencies.21 In conclusion, the commercial lime industry has invested substantial resources to develop a method to address EPA's concern thatMethod 26 understates HCI emissions. An ASTM committee has concluded that Method D 6735-01 generates data thathas no statistically significant bias. Itis arbitrary andunreasonable for the Agency to burden the commercial lime industry

- halfofwhich is comprised ofsmall businesses

- with a requirementto conduct analyte spiking to prove that HCI testresults are unbiased. Likewise, requiring pairedruns to comply with a precision criteriais not warranted because (1) EPA has neverraised any concerns about the precision ofimpingergenerated HCI data, and (2) ASTM Committee D22 on Sampling and Testing of Atmospheres approved the impinger-based method after evaluating the precision ofthe data generated with the method. Accordingly, the bias andprecision criteria for HCI test results obtainedusing ASTM Method D6735-01 should be deleted from the rule. 

### 2. The rule should provide state agencies with the discretion to not require Hel testing ofall kilns.

19 Otherrecentrules thatrequire the use of Method 26 to measure HCl are the proposedMACTs for Industrial/CommerciaI/Institutional Boilers (68 Fed. Reg.1,659, Jan. 13,2003), Brick/Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (67 Fed. Reg. 47,894, July 22, 2002), and Petroleum Refining (67 FedReg. 17,762, Apr. 11, 2002).

20 PetitionerNational Lime Association's Supplemental Non-Binding Statement ofIssues in Cement MACT Litigation, pg 13 (Dec. 27, 1999) (Attachment K).

21 EPA's reply thatthe CementMACT also disallows the use ofMethod 26 data for area source demonstrations is notpersuasive because the cementindustry asked EPA for an alternative to Method 26 due to the industry's concerns thatM. 26 generates biased data (Cement Docket Item No. II-D-151). Page 22Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation

The proposed rule at § 63.7142(a) requires that stack gases from all kilns at a lime plant be tested for HCI in order to demonstrate that the plant is an area source. This requirement is unnecessarily strict and will cause practical difficulties for many plants. In recent years, many lime plants have been forced to idle or infrequently operate kilns at operating plants due to increased fuel cost, reduced customer demand, etc. Such kilns have permits and could be activated ifmarket conditions change. Not only are significant expenditures required to startup every kiln for the purpose ofconducting HCI testing, but also PM and other emissions that otherwise would not be generated would occur. The final rule should provide state agencies with the flexibility to not require companies to operate lime kilns solely for the purpose ofconducting HCI testing when market conditions do notjustify doing so. For example, ifan idled kiln is ofthe same type as an active kiln at the plant, and it is frredwith the same fuel and stone, it may be reasonable for a state agency to conclude that HCI emissions testing from the active kiln can be used to estimate emissions from the idled kiln. Furthermore, testing may not be warranted on kilns that represent small fractions ofthe plant's total capacity. For example, consider a plant with 4 kilns with the following potential production capacities: 

## ( Kiln I: Kiln 2: Kiln 3: Kiln 4: 50,000 tons/year 65,000 tons/year 175,000 tons/year 250,000 tons/year Testing ofkilns 3 and 4 would establish HCI emissions for most ofthe plant's capacity. Emissions for kilns 1 and 2 could be estimatedbaseduponresults oftesting kilns 3 and/or4. Determination ofthe plant's area source status would be basedupon the potential HCI emissions from all four kilns. Accordingly, § 63.7142(a) should be revised to provide state agencies with the discretion to determine whether testing ofall kilns at a lime plant is necessary in orderto demonstrate that a plant is an area source.


### 3. The rule should allow lime plants to use the following emission factors to estimate HAP metal emissions: 0.15% ofPM emissions from kiln stacks and 0.07% from stone handling operations Area source determinations under the cement MACT allow cementplants to assume that HAP metals emissions constitute 1% ofPM emissions. Although this 1% emission factor overstates actual metal emissions, cementplant operators have used this value in area source determinations to avoid the high costs ofmetal emission testing and

Page 23

### (



## (

i \ Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
because HAP metals emissions will not significantly affectthe major source determination. The quantity ofmetal HAPs emitted from lime plants is sufficiently low that it is highly unlikely that suchmetals will be present in quantities that would have any effect on whether a commercial lime plant exceeds the 25 ton peryear major source threshold for all HAPs. The HAP metal content oflime kiln emissions is 0.15% (Docket ItemNo. II-B-43)

-- approximately one-tenth the HAP metal content ofcementkiln PM emissions. The HAP metal content offugitive stone emissions is 0.07% (DocketItemNo. II-B-77) These small quantities will not affect the area/major source determination for any lime plant, and thus measurement ofthe metal emissions is unnecessary. 

### 4. Testing for HAP organics should not be required because it is highly unlikely that such compounds will be presentin quantities that would have any effect on whether a commercial lime plant exceeds the 25 ton per year major source threshold for all HAPs. Lime kilns are not expected to emit significant quantities oforganic HAPs because inorganic limestone is the only feed material processed. This is differentthan cementkilns which process a variety offeed materials, some ofwhich contain organic carbon such as petroleum orkerogens. Forexample, one cementkiln operator conducted an extensive study that attributedhigh THC emissions from a cementkiln to the shale used in the raw materials (CementMACT Docket ItemNo. II-I-107). Several states have confirmedthat lime kiln feed material does not contain kerogens (Lime Docket Items Nos. II-E-25, II-E-26, II-E-27). EPA's testing of10 commercial lime kilns detected virtually no organic HAPs (Docket ItemNo. II-B-121), so it is highly unlikely that such compounds will be present in quantities thatwould have any effect on whether a commercial lime plant exceeds the 25 tonperyear major source threshold for all HAPs. Atthe one plant at which "screening" tests indicatedthe presence oforganic HAPs, the kilns were operating in non-representative conditions (Docket Item No. II-D-186), and emissions were low in any event (less than 0.4 and 0.7 ppm vperkiln). Lime kilns at sugar beet facilities have been exempted from the lime MACT, and thus are not required to measure emissions ofany HAPs, including organic HAPs. No analysis oforganic emissions from lime kilns at sugar beet facilities has been conducted (Docket Item Nos. II-B-44 & 81). If EPA can generalize that organic HAPs at sugar plants do not exceed major source thresholds based on little to no data, the Agency can certainly determine

--- based on the Agency's comprehensive testing

-- that organic HAPs from commercial lime plants need notbe measured. 

### 5. The requirement in 

### § 63.7142(b) to use FTIR, Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99 iforganics testing is conducted for area source determinations should be deleted. The proposedrequirement creates the inference that organics testing shouldbe conducted, and that testing beyond the 36 volatile organics specified in the ASTM
Page 24

### (



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation method is necessary. As described above, the chance that organics will cause lime plants to be a major source is highly remote.
GENERAL 1. Performance testing should be conducted under "representative" conditions rather than under the "highest production level reasonably expected to occur." The proposed rule requires that Method 5 and 5D testing be conducted at the "highestproduction level reasonably expected to occur" (Table 4, § 5 and 6). By contrast, the General Provisions specify that "performance tests shall be conducted
... based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions)" (40 CFR § 63.7(e)(l).22 In response to litigation, EPA amended the Cement MACT to cure a similar inconsistency between the General Provisions and performance testing for cement plants at 40 CFR § 63.1349(b) (see 67 Fed. Reg. 16,616). Accordingly, Table 4 ofthe proposed lime MACT shouldbe revised to specify that Method 5 and 5D testing mustbe conductedbased on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions)." 2. Reports should be required only for malfunctions, not startups and shutdowns. The proposedrule at § 63.7121(b) requires that lime plants report each exceedance ofa lime MACT limit, including periods ofstartup, shutdown and malfunction. However, in recentproposed amendments to the General Provisions in SubpartA ofPart 63, EPA has determined thatrequiring reporting ofstartups and shutdowns is "unnecessary and burdensome" (67 Fed. Reg. 72,881). "So long as the provisions ofthe SSM plan are followed, there does not appearto be any real utility in requiring that each startup and shutdown be reported or described." (Id.) Because such reporting would also be unnecessary and burdensome for lime plants, EPA shouldrevise § 63.7121 (b) to require reporting ofonly malfunctions thatresult in an exceedance ofa lime MACT limit. 3. The final rule should provide a risk-based exemption from the entire rule (notjust from Hel standards) for plants at which modeled risks are below healthbased thresholds. EPA recently solicited comment on providing risk-based exemptions in proposed MACT standards for the following sources categories: stationary combustionturbines, industrial boilers, the plywood industry, internal combustion engines, and automobile and light duty truck surface coating. NLA strongly supports the view that such exemptions 22 Compliance with this paragraph ofthe General Provisions is required underthe proposed rule at § 63.711(b).

Page 25

### (



## (



## ( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation shouldbe provided in MACT standards that impose substantial costs while achieving negligible reductions inrisks to public health. As described elsewhere inthese comments and inprevious NLA submissions to the Agency, the lime MACT fits this description. Accordingly, ifEPA makes apolicy decision to include in MACT rules an exemption for individualplants, or a subcategory ofplants, based on a demonstration that the plant/subcategory does not emit harmful quantities ofHAPs, we request that EPA include such an exemption in the fmallime MACT rule. 4. The Benefits Analysis is based on inaccurate assumptions, and presents conclusions regarding reductions in metal HAPs that are greatly overstated. EPA estimates HAP metals will be reduced by 23 tons peryear (tpy). A more accurate estimate is less than 4 tpy. As will be shown in detail below, EPA has overlooked informationpreviously submitted to the Agency that shows its benefits analysis is higWy inaccurate. EPA estimates that the lime industry emits nearly 32,000 tpy ofPM.23 However, EPA has greatly overstatedthree sources ofPM emissions at lime plants: "uncontrolled" lime kilns, new kilns, and uncontrolled stone handling operations (SHOs) as reflected in the chart and as described below:
Source Baseline PM Emissions 

### DIll1 EPA NLA Existine Kilns

Uncontrolled 11,177 412 Controlled 4,245 4,245 New Kilns 4,960 592 Existing Coolers 280 280 Existin2 Stone Handlin2 Operations (SHOs)

Uncontrolled SHOs 4.240 189 OtherMaterial Handling & Controlled SHOs :l4 4,411 4,411 New SHOs 2,548 2,548 Total 

### 31,861 12,677 Baseline Emissions UncontrolledExisting Kilns: Two-thirds ofEPA's baseline emissions for existing kilns are from uncontrolled kilns; i.e., kilns not controlled withbaghouses, ESPs, or scrubbers.

23 Preamble, pg. 78,064 and Docket ItemNo. II-B-131, Tables 4 and 9.

24 EPA's estimate includes solidfuel handling units, which is peculiargiven that these units are not subject to the proposedLime MACT. EPA assumes that controlled stone handling units already use baghouses. Page 26

## (



## (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
EPA uses an emission factor of35 Ib PM/ton lime produced (TLP) to estimate PM from these kilns.25 NLA submitted comments to the SBREFA Panel on January 15,2001 explaining that -- based on actual test data from these kilns -- the EF is 27 times smaller (i.e. 1.29 Ib PM/TLP).26 Using the more accurate emission factor reduces baseline annual PM emissions foruncontrolled kilns from 11,177 to 412 tons-see Attachment L. New kilns: EPA assumes that 4,555,000 tons ofcapacity will be built inthe next 5 years. This new capacity and related emissions are estimatedby EPA to result from the following:
• Rotary kilns: 3,900,000 tons ofnew capacity emitting PM at 1.2Ib PM/ton lime (based on the NSPS limit), and
• Double shaft vertical kilns: 655,000 tons ofnew capacity emitting at SIb PM/ton lime.27 Using these emission rates, EPA predicts that new kilns will emitnearly 5,000 tons of PM each year. However, a review ofpermits for the lime industry issued in recent years reveals that new rotary kilns have been subjectto requirements at levels corresponding, on average, to about 0.13 Ib/tsf. 28 Regarding double shaft vertical kilns, because most such kilns have been idledrecently due to the high price ofnatural gas,29 it is unlikely that 655,000 tons ofnew capacity will be needed in the next 5 years. In any event, permits for such kilns issued during the past decade impose PM limits, on average, less than 0.12 Ib PM/tsf. Thus, like EPA's assumed emission rates for rotary kilns, those for new double shaft kilns are highly overstated. Based on more realistic emission rates based on actual permit limits for new lime kilns of0.13 Ib/tsf( 0.26 Ib/ton lime), a more reasonable estimate ofbaseline PM emissions from these kilns is 592 tpy (4,555,000 tpy 

## * 0.26 lb/ton lime).

25 In January 2002, EPA used an emission factor of32 Ib PM/ton lime. To reflectthe apparent change to 35 Ib PM/ton lime, Attachment L is a revised version ofAttachmentH to NLA's comments to the SBREFA Panel submitted on January 15,2002.

26 DocketItem No. II-B-I 16, Appendix C, pg 13 and Attachment H

27 Docket Item No II-B-13l, p. 9.

28 Examples ofrecently permitted new rotary kilns include Texas Lime kiln 6 (0.13 Ib PM/tst), Arkansas Lime (0.14 Ib PM/tst) , Chemical Lime O'Neal (0.12 Ib PM/tst), Western Lime Eden (0.12), Western Lime Green Bay kiln 2 (0.12 Ib/tst), CutlerMagnerkiln 4 (0.12 Ib PM/tst) and Chemical Lime St. Genevieve (0.I7 Ib/tsf)

29 Examples ofgas-fired, double shaftvertical kilns that were permitted in the 1990s and are now closed include Chemical Lime's Palmetto, Douglas and Ten Mile plants. Tenn Luttrell's solid fuel-fired vertical kiln, permitted in 1998, is also closed.
Page 27

## (



# (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation Existing, uncontrolled stone handling operations: For stone handling operations (SHOs) at lime plants, the emissions factor EPA developed for the lime MACT is 

### 0.86 lb PM!tsf. The Agency derived this emission factor using AP-42 emission factors with "E" (i.e., poor) ratings. 30 Using the emission factor ofO.86lb PM!tsf, EPA estimates that nearly 9,000 tpy ofPM emissions are emitted from material handling operations, as follows:
• 4,240 tpy from uncontrolled SHOS. 31

• 1,815 tpy from uncontrolled solid fuel handling
• 2,596 tpy from already controlled stone handling. As explained in NLA's comments to the SBREFA Panel, amore reliable emission factor for suchunits is 

### 0.0383 lb PM!tsf.32 This emission factor is more reliable because it is rated "C" andwas revised in 1995

- in contrast to the emission factors EPA used which are rated "E" and are based on 1974 vintage data.33 When the more reliable emission factor is used, baseline emissions ofPM from uncontrolled stone handling are reduced from 4,240 to 189 tpy.

Reductions in PM!Metal HAPs Attributed to the Rule EPA estimates that the rule will reduce PM emissions by more than 15,000 tpy, which corresponds to 23 tpy HAP metals. 34 However, a more accurate estimate ofnetreductions is about 2,500 tpy ofPM, which corresponds to 3.5 tpy HAP metals -- about one-seventh ofEPA's estimate as reflected inthe chart and described below. As a preliminary matter, it shouldbe noted thatNLA's reduction estimates summarizedbelow were calculatedusing EPA's methodology, as follows:

• For kilns, reductions are the difference betweenbaseline emissions and emissions corresponding to the MACT standard-Le., [0.12 lb/tsf(0.24 lb/ton lime) for existing kilns and 0.10 lb/tsf(0.20 lb/ton lime) for new kilns. The NLA and EPA estimates are based on the same emissions afterregulation, but differentbaselines. EPA andNLA's reduction estimates for existing kilns are reduced by 30% to represent area sources exempt from MACT regulation.

• Foruncontrolled stone handling operations, emissions reductions are estimated as apercentage ofthe baseline. The NLA and EPA estimates both use 90 percent,

30 Source ofemission factor: Chapter 11.17 ofAP-42 entitled "LimeManufacturing."

31 DocketItem No. II-B-120, Table 4.
32 Source ofemission factor: Chapter 11.19 ofAP-42 for "Crushed Stone Processing." 33 For a detailed explanation as to why this emission factor is more reliable thanthatreferred to in footnote 8, see Docket Item No. No. II-B-116, Appendix C, pp. 10-12, AttachmentE.
34 67 Fed. Reg. 78,064 and II-B-131, Tables 7 and 10. Page 28

### (



## ( Comments o/theNationalLimeAssociation butuse differentbaselines. EPA and NLA's reduction estimates are reduced by 30% to represent area sources exempt from MACT regulation.
Source Reduced PM Reduced HAP Emissions (mv) Metals (mv) EPA NLA EPA NLA Existin2 Kilns

Uncontrolled 7,770 235 13.1 0.4 Controlled 1,798 1,798 2.7 2.7 New Kilns 3,154 137 5.3 0.2 Coolers 166 166 0.1 0.1 Existing Stone Handling Operations (SHOs)

Uncontrolled SHOs 2,673 119 

### 1.8 0.1 OtherMaterial Handling & 0 0 0.0 0.0 Controlled SHOs NewSHOs 0 0 0.0 0.0 Total 

### 15,561 2,454 23.0 

### 3.5j :>
Uncontrolled Existing Kilns: NLA estimates that emissions from these kilns will decrease by 1.05lb PM/ton lime (= 1.29 (correctedbaseline emission factor)

- 0.24 (afterMACT regulation)). Based on 638,661 tpy oflime production, this corresponds to 335 tpy of PM. 36 Because EPA assumes that emissionreductions are reducedby 30% to represent area sources exempt from the rule, this reduces estimatedreductions to 235 tpy PM, or 0.4 tpy metals. 37 New Kilns: The difference betweenNLA's estimate ofthe average PM limits for new kilns (0.13 lb/tsf) and the proposed limit of0.10 lb/tsfin the lime MACT is 0.03 lb/tsf (0.06lb/ton lime). This value, multipliedby EPA's estimate of4,555,000 tpy ofcapacity results in PM reductions of137 tpy, and metal HAP reductions of0.2 tpy. Existing, Uncontrolled Stone Handling Units: Based on a control efficiency of90%, NLA estimates that emissions from uncontrolled SHOs are reduced by 170 tpy (= 90% of 189).

35 Although EPA provided no support for its assumption that 30% ofthe lime plants are area sources, to simplifY the comparison ofEPA's and NLA's estimatedbenefits ofthe rule, we used the 30% area source assumption here. It should be noted that in the discussion ofbenefits attributable to a 0.12 vs 0.6 lb PMltsf limit for scrubber-equipped kilns, we assumed all scrubber-equippedkilns are major sources. Using the 30% area source assumption would decrease the estimated metal HAPs reduction resulting from a 0.121b PMltsflimitby about one tpy (see pg 1 ofour comments).
36 NLA estimates PM emissions for uncontrolled existing kilns are reduced by 335 tpy, from 412 to 77 tpy. EPA estimates they are reducedby 11,100, from 11,177 to 77 tpy.
37 NLA's PM reduction estimate is 235 tpy (= 70% of335). EPA's is 7,770 tpy (= 70% of 11,100).
Page 29

### (



# (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
Because EPA assumes that emissionreductions are reduced by 30% to represent area sources exempt fromthe rule, this reduces the estimatedreductions to 119 tpy PM, or 0.1 tpy metals (using EPA's factor of0.00069 lb metals/lb SHO PM).
Conclusion
As the Agency considers NLA's requests to revise the MACT rule, NLA believes itis important for EPApolicy makers to have an accurate accounting ofthe environmental benefits attributed to the rule. Accordingly, we believe thatEPA should eitherreflect NLA estimates in the preamble to the fmal rule, orprovide areasoned response to ourcomments thatEPA's estimates are overstated. As noted above, we believe the best estimate ofmetal HAP reductions is 3.5 tons (7,000 pounds) peryear. Based on the 56 lime plants predicted to be subjectto the MACT rule, this translates into an annual reduction in metal HAPs perlime plant of 124 pounds.


### 5. The Economic ImpactAnalysis is seriously flawed because it erroneously assumes lime producers can pass control costs through to customers. The draft Economic ImpactAnalysis (EIA) for the Lime MACT is based on inaccurate assumptions, and reaches conclusions inconsistentwith the realities ofthe lime industry. Specifically, itbases its impact projections on the proposition thatlime producers will be able to pass increased control costs through to their customers by raising prices. As will be shown in detail below, and as has been demonstrated to EPA during the SBREFA panel process, prices for lime products cannotbe raised, even if costs increase, and thus any additional costs will have to be absorbed by the lime producers. Thus, the conclusions reached in the EIA, that control costs will be offsetto a significant degree by increasedlime prices, are not accurate, and thus EPA's estimate of the number ofplant closures and other impacts resulting from the rule are likewise flawed. Background NLA and its members have long been concerned aboutthe potential cost impacts ofthe Lime MACT, especially when comparedto the very modest environmental benefits potentially available. In particular, NLA recognized thatiflime producers were required to replace scrubbers with baghouses, the results would be devastating for many facilities. Small businesses operate a disproportionate number ofscrubber-equipped kilns, and would be particularly hard-hitby such a requirement, and a number ofthem would have to close because oftheir inability to pay for the change to a baghouse. In its January 15,2002, comments submitted during the SBREFA Panel, NLA explainedthatEPA's then-current draft EIA was seriously flawed because it assumed that increased control costs would lead to increased lime prices, mitigating the effects ofthose
Page 30

## (



# (

( Comments of the NationalLimeAssociation
costs. NLA provided detailed information on why the realities ofthe lime marketespecially overcapacity-made it impossible for lime producers to raise prices, even if costs were to increase. This pointwas further emphasized and demonstratedby NLA and its small-business members in meetings with the SBREFA Panel. The SBREFA Panel responded to this information with the following recommendation: Recommend thatEPA reevaluate the assumptions used in modeling the economic impacts ofthe standards and conduct a sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities reflective ofthe industry's claims that there is little ability to pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable opportunity for product substitution·in a number ofthe lime industry markets. (preamble, pg 78,067). In the preamble to the rule, EPA states thatthe "EIA does include the aforementioned considerations and analyses." However, as explained in more detail below, the draftEIA does not go nearly far enough in taking these considerations into account, and continues to state conclusions that are at odds with the basic facts governing the lime industry. The EIA's Conclusions The draftEIA concludes that increased control costs will cause lime prices to rise 2.1 percent (in both the with and without PM CEMS scenarios). Underboth scenarios, EPA predicts that two small lime producers will close because the control costs will eliminate theirprofits. Atthe end ofthe EIA, EPA includes a sensitivity analysis which varies some ofthe inputs, but which assumes under all scenarios that lime prices will increase. EPA's EIA Analysis Methodology In its EIA, EPA uses microeconomic formulae to determine what the impact of increased control costs will be on the lime. These formulae use as inputs supply elasticity for lime, demand elasticity for lime, expected control costs, and average lime prices. However, these formulae and the elasticity inputs all share a common, but inaccurate assumption: that increased costs oflime production will result in reduced supply and thus higherprices. Although economic models are useful tools, they become counterproductive and misleading when theirunderlying assumptions deviate from reality. That reality is described below. The Realities ofthe Lime Market Make ItImpossible for Lime Producers to Raise Prices for Any Reason The lime business in this country is already extremely competitive, with multiple producers competing for the same customers, often largely-or solely-on the basis of price. Indeed, as EPA has recognized, the real price oflime nationwide has "been on a
Page 31

## (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation downward trend since 1986." (EIA, pg. 2-15). Most lime companies, especially small ones, are alreadybarely covering expenses. There simply is no "give" in the price of lime. There are a number ofreasons for this situation, as describedbelow.
The Commercial Lime MarketIs Already Highly Competitive Due to Overcapacity The EIA does not adequately take into account the fact thatthe domestic lime market in the United States is already characterizedby a significant overcapacity, which makes it impossible to raise prices. This overcapacity amounts to approximately 5 million metric tons, or 24% ofthe entire market for lime. This large overcapacity came into existence because ofthe contraction ofa number ofthe key markets for lime, most notably the steel market. The EIA predicts that closures and other impacts will cause a reduction in lime production ofover 300,000 tons as a result ofthe rule. 38 This, however, is still only a small portion ofthe overcapacity that already exists. Any suggestionthatthe price of lime will rise because ofa reduction ofsupply is simply unfounded. To make this even clearer, as long as there is head-to-head, price-based competition among lime producers (which is true in virtually all lime markets), and as long as there is significant oversupply oflime (which is the case nationwide, as EPA recognizes), lime prices simply cannot go up. Indeed, in 2000, 1 million tons ofadditional excess capacity was eliminated by the closure offour commercial plants, but lime prices have not increased, having further decreased in real terms. This is because the total excess is still so large. In otherwords, the typical supply elasticity analysis, which assumes that the currentprice is based on an equilibriumbetween supply and demand, is not applicable to the lime market. Perhaps the confusion arises from the erroneous ideathat current supply oflime is the same as the quantity oflime that is currently produced. Formany manufactured materials,.increasing supply requires new factories and othercapital investment. For lime, this is not the case because all the capital equipment needed to produce more lime is already inplace. Thus, closure oftwo (ormore) lime plants will not reduce the quantity oflime available to a point anywhere nearthe current level of demand for lime. Because available supply already outstrips demand, prices are already extremely low, and a small reduction in capacity will not allow them to rise.

38 Although EPA may well be rightthatits rule would cause closures ofsome lime plants, it is highly unlikely that otherlime plants wouldreduce productionbecause ofincreasedproduction costs. The rule will primarily require costly retrofits ofkiln equipment, and most ofthe costs will not vary a great deal withproduction. Ratherthan reducing production at a kiln, ifthe costs are too high forprofitable operation, a kiln will simply be shut down entirely. Then the remaining producers will increase production in orderto capture the business represented by the closedproducers, and to generate as much revenue as possible to absorb the added control costs. Page 32

### (



# (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation

Commercial Lime Can Be Replaced by Lime from Unregulated Sources As EPA recognizes, in certain parts ofthe country, U.S. lime producers compete with foreign suppliers, which obviously will notbe subject to the added costs ofthe MACT rule. Clearly, those domestic producers that compete with these foreign suppliers will notbe able to raise theirprices. Ifthey do, the foreign suppliers will increase their market share, as well as their geographical penetration into the U.S. market. Commercial lime plants also face competitive pressure from captive lime kilns in industries with less stringent MACT requirements, such as the pulp and paperindustry. Atpresent, commercial lime producers make significant lime sales to paperplants during upset conditions, when the captive lime facilities are off-line. Commercial producers cannotraise theirprices for these sales, because the pulp and paperplants would simply manufacture and store more lime at their own facilities, which they could do at a much lower cost. Sugarmanufacturers, which EPA does not intend to regulate in this rule, typically operate theirkilns only seasonally. However, ifthe price oflime went up, itwould cause many ofthese operations to begin operating during their current down times, and sell competing lime into the commercial market. Competitive Substitutes Exist for Most ofLime's Key Markets In most ofthe key markets for lime, there are competitive products that already have a significant market share. In many cases, lime already competes with these alternative products largely based on price. Lime producers clearly will notbe able to raise prices without losing substantial market share in these applications. This problem is particularly severe with respect to several competing products which are not subject to MACT requirements. For example, lime competes head-to-head with crushed limestone in a number ofmarkets, most notably in flue gas desulfurization, which makes up 15% ofthe lime business. Lime faces stiffcompetition in many ofits other applications as well. Caustic soda and soda ash compete for various chemical and other applications, and synthetic materials compete as asphalt additives. Dolomitic lime is facing a serious challenge from

.. d fr Ch' 39 magnesia Importe om mao

39 This pointwas emphasizedby the Small Business Representatives at a meeting with the SBREFA panel on February 19. Chinese magnesia is shipped all the way from China and processed in Canada, and yet can compete on a price basis with lime from aplantonly a few miles away from the customer in Iowa--even though lime itselfis far from an expensive product, and even though lime is superiorto magnesia in importantrespects. Page 33

### (



# (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
The existence ofthese competing products means thatEPA's assumption about price elasticity ofdemand for lime is inaccurate. Ifthe price oflime is increased, the demand for lime will drop much more than EPA has indicated. Limeproducers are aware ofthis, and thus are well aware that they cannotraise prices, even iftheir costs increase.
Most Lime Markets Are Extremely Resistant to Price Increases Aside from the fact thatthey have access to competing products, most major lime markets are extremely resistant to price increases for otherreasons. Forexample, the steel and paperindustries, both majorlime users, are mature industries that are struggling to compete with foreign imports themselves. They are unable to raise theirprices, and thus are unable to tolerate increasedprices for raw materials. Othermarkets, such as watertreatment, involve municipalities that musttightly control costs. Many ofthese sales are made through competitive bids for long-term contracts, and the customers will not allow laterprice modifications based on increased costs.
Recent History Proves Lime Producers CannotRaise Prices As noted above, four lime plants closedin 2000, and a number ofothers have closed in recent years. These closures did not result in increasedprices for lime, but insteadreal prices have declined. Indeed, in many cases the closures occurredbecause of increased costs that couldnotbe passedthrough to customers. A significantportion of the closed facilities were gas-firedkilns, andwhen gas prices increased, lime customers would not accept a fuel surcharge. The business wentto otherlime producers, orto other products entirely. Butthe market as awhole remained sufficiently competitive thatthere were no real costincreases.

Because the Assumption that Lime Prices Will Increase Is Erroneous, EPA's Prediction that Only Two Lime Plants Will Close Seriously Understates the Impact EPA's analysis concludes that evenwithout PM CEMS, the costs ofthe rule would force two small lime producers to close. However, EPA's beliefthat no other small producers will close is based on the faulty conclusion thatthe price oflime will increase, offsetting the costs. As shown above, there will be no suchprice increase, and the cost increases will have to be directly and completely absorbedby the lime producers. Accordingly, in any case in which the costs ofthe rule exceed the currentprofits ofthe lime business, the business will be forced to close. Since EPA's rule also underestimates costs--especially for scrubber-equipped kilns-this could encompass 

### all ofthe small businesses thathave such kilns, notjusttwo. In Table 4-4 ofthe EIA, EPA sets out potential impacts ifsmall businesses are obligatedto absorb the full control costs. Inthattable, EPA shows that for halfofall such small lime businesses, control costs would amountto more than 3% oflime salesPage 34

## (

(

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation
this in a group with average profits estimatedto be 5.7%. Ifthis profit average is accurate (and it is probably high), it is almost certain that the control costs will eliminate all profits for more than two lime facilities. It shouldbe added that even if5.7% is an accurate average profit margin, it is the distribution ofactual profitmargins that will determine how many facilities will close-ifthere are a few comfortably profitable operations and many marginally profitable operations, all ofthe latter couldbe forced to close. Finally, itmostbe added thatthe closure ofeven two small lime companies is a serious matter. EPA has estimated that about 100people will lose theirlivelihoods as a result. NLA believes

- based on the facts set out in these comments
- thatthe environmental benefits ofthe entire rule are so minimal that they do notjustify the financial upheaval thatthese 100 people and their families will experience, notto mention the destruction oftwo small businesses. Thus, EPA should take all possible steps to minimize the rule's impacts on the lime industry, including the establishment ofa scrubber subcategory and the other changes described in these comments.
The EINs Sensitivity Analysis Does Not Adequately Respond to the Panel's Recommendations In response to the Panel's recommendations, as well as comments by NLA and others that the lime industry would notbe able to raise prices, the authors ofthe EIA did not actually analyze the facts NLA provided. Indeed, the EIA continues to maintainthat its chosenparametervalues are "reasonable given the currently available data and information." (EIA, at B-1) It is difficult to see how this canbe the case, when the parameters are based on general assumptions and estimates drawn from otherindustries, while NLA and its members presented information from the lime industry demonstrating thatthe parameters are inaccurate. Instead ofactually reconsidering the assumptions underlying its model, EPA performed a sensitivity analysis in which it modified some ofthe parameters under various hypothetical circumstances. One ofthese, scenario B2, is closerto reality than EPA's chosen scenario, but it still falls short ofthe facts. In scenario B2, EPA posits that "demand is significantly more responsive than supply, e.g., ifpurchasers oflime are much more price sensitive thanpurchasers ofPortland cement and lime suppliers have only limited ability to change the quantity they supply in response to price changes." Underthis scenario, EPApredicts an overall decline inproduction ofover 400,000 tons, and a 0.5% price increase. Althoughthis might seem like a modestprice increase, for a commodity as highly competitive as lime, it is extremely significant. Underthe realities ofthe market, it would simply not occur. In the real market, those companies that could absorb the additional costs would do so, reducing theirprofits without raising theirprices. Companies (or specific operations oflarger companies) that could not absorb the costs would cease operation. The current competitive nature ofthe market, coupled with overcapacity, means that less profitable companies couldbe

Page 35

### (



## (

( Comments of theNationalLimeAssociation squeezed out ofthe market without any increase in price, and without any decrease in overall production. But even under the B2 scenario, small businesses would lose almost halfoftheir pre-tax earnings under eitherthe with orwithout PM CEMS scenario. (Table B-3) This would be a devastating impact, and itis simply not credible to suppose that only two of these companies would close under such circumstances. In fact, because there will in fact be no price increase, the impactwill be even greater. Atthe very least, EPA shouldhave used the B2 scenario to generate the economic estimates featured in the preamble and the maintext ofthe EIA, because the B2 scenario is significantly more true to the facts than the scenario actually used in those documents. Relegating that scenario to a few charts in an appendix to an accompanying document disguises the degree ofeconomic impactthat will be sufferedby regulated companies, especially small businesses. Indeed, it would have been better for EPA to have modeled a B3 scenario, in whichbothprices and production do not change, while control costs increase. Such a scenario-reflecting the reality ofthe lime market-wouldbetterreflect the real impact ofthe rule on the lime industry.

Page 36