(

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 Protection Agency

Lazarus Government Center

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, OR 43216-1049

RE: OAC 3745-17-07 SIP Exemption Request for Martin Marietta

Comments on OEPA's April 11th Interested Parties DRAFT

Dear Mr. Orlemann:

On April 11th, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued an "Interested Parties"

notice containing draft language that proposed a rule exemption for Martin Marietta Magnesia

Specialties, LLC ("Martin Marietta") from the requirements ofO.A.C. §3745-17-07(A) during

the startup and shutdown oflime producing kilns at Martin Marietta's Woodville, Ohio facility.

In accordance with the enclosed copies of prior submittals regarding this matter on October 2nd,

2006; August 24th, 2006; March 21 sf, 2006; December 15 th, 2005; and October 14 th, 2005;

Martin Marietta is submitting the following comments on the proposed draft. Our experience

has confirmed that the 600°F operating temperature specification provided by the manufacturer

of our electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is applicable during both shutdown and startup operations.

Thus, Martin Marietta requests that Ohio EPA add the following language to the proposed rule:

"(iv) The shutdown of any kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator

(ESP), after the temperature ofthe exhaust gases from the kiln has dropped

below six hundred (600) degrees Fahrenheit at the inlet ofthe ESP."

Please contact me if you have questions regarding this submittal or need additional information

on the proposed SIP exemption. Thank you for your continuing efforts on this important matter.

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 Protection Agency

Lazarus Government Center

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, OR 43216-1049

RE: OAC 3745-17 Interested Parties Rulemaking Proposal - MMMS Comments

Dear Mr. Orlemann:

On April 11th, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued an "Interested Parties"

notice containing draft language that proposed amendments ofthe subject OAC §3745-17 rules.

Martin Marietta is submitting the following comments on the proposed rulemaking, based on

recent questions about apparent discrepancies between the Ohio EPA's definitions, specifically

the "maximum capacity of a source" specification, and the terminology accepted by the USEPA

under 40 CFR Part 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 set forth on page 25) and the corresponding USEPA "Public Comments

and Responses" (showing acceptance ofthe NLA suggestions on page 3-49) in August of2003.

In addition, we believe that a review ofthese documents may reveal other inconsistencies that

would warrant further revision ofthe proposed OEPA rulemaking package, potentially reducing

some ofthe differences between the Ohio EPA requirements and USEPA regulatory protocols.

Please contact me if you have questions regarding this submittal or need additional information

on these "Interested Party" 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 of HCl 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 order to avoid the environmentally counterproductive effects of

subjecting scrubber-equipped kilns to the proposed PM limit of 0.12 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 with baghouses, because existing scrubbers cannot meet the limit. NLA pointed

out that because scrubbers more readily achieve removal of acid gases than baghouses,

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 & Docket Item No 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 ofthe National Lime Association

lower capital costs, "and in some cases" lower annual costs than baghouses (preamble, at

78,059). However, as described below, these assertions are incorrect.

EPA's and NLA's analyses show that high efficiency venturi scrubbers

are more expensive than baghouses

In 5 ofthe 6 cases (or model kilns) the Agency examined, annualized costs for

high efficiency venturi scrubbers are much higher than for baghouses (Docket Item No.

II-F-7). Only for Model Kiln B, which represents 5 kilns producing 4% ofthe lime made

in scrubber-equipped kilns, is the cost of a baghouse greater than for a high efficiency

venturi scrubber (see Attachment A).

EPA's cost analysis assumes that a 35-inch (inches ofwater) gas stream pressure

drop across a scrubber is needed to achieve the 99.94% removal efficiency required to

meet the 0.12lb PMltsfstandard (Docket Item. No. II-C-148). Attachment B compares

EPA's cost analysis with a cost proposal recently prepared by a scrubber manufacturer to

install a scrubber with a 35-inch gas pressure drop at a lime plant. The capital costs in the

proposal are more than twice what EPA estimated, and the annual costs are more than

25% higher.2 Attachment B also shows that the scrubber vendor's estimates are very

similar to those previously submitted by NLA.

The scrubber manufacturer's estimated cost reaffirms NLA's position that a

scrubber with a 35-inch pressure drop costs substantially more than EPA estimates. If

these more accurate costs were incorporated into EPA's cost analyses, the much higher

cost of high efficiency scrubbers relative to baghouses would be even more pronounced

than shown in Attachment A.

A scrubber with a 35-inch gas stream pressure drop

likely cannot meet the proposed PM limit

In the above-referenced cost proposal, the manufacturer's guarantee that the

scrubber will meet the proposed PM limit of 0.12 lb PMltsf contains an important proviso

-- that less than one percent ofthe particles to be removed by the scrubber are less than

one micrometer in diameter. Particle size distribution is one ofthe key factors in

determining the static pressure drop needed to achieve the proposed PM limit.

EPA assumes that the average mass diameter of particles 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 (Docket Item No. 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 that requested the proposal will submit the proposal

to EPA under the protections of confidential business information. The lime company received a second

bid, but it is for a system with only 22 inches ofpressure drop and therefore is not analogous to the 35-inch

system analyzed by EPA.

Page 2
(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

More importantly, the capability of a 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 scrubber vendor indicated to Global Stone that its

scrubber could meet an outlet dust loading of 0.01 gr/dscf(roughly comparable to the

proposed PM limit) for its calcimatic kiln. The vendor's representation was based, in part,

on particle size data measured at the plant that indicated that the mass median diameter of

the PM distribution ranged from 2.3 to 3.0 micrometers (aerodynamic) -- values similar

to the 2 micrometer value used in Docket Item No. 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 that the permit

must be modified because the scrubber can only reduce outlet dust loading on a

continuous basis to roughly 0.04 gr/dscf. This lower than 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 impaction becomes 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. For this reason, the 0.1 to 0.5

micrometer size range has been termed the "difficult-to-control" range.

Potassium is a natural trace constituent ofmost limestone and fossil fuels.

However, the variability of potassium levels in limestone supplies throughout the U.S.

has never been quantified. In addition to potassium, other alkali metals naturally present

in limestone could participate in volatilization-homogeneous nucleation processes to

create 0.1 to 0.5 micrometer particles. The well-documented submicrometer PM

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 question EPA's conclusion that a

scrubber with a pressure drop of 35 inches can meet the proposed PM limit of 0.12 lb/tsf. 3

In particular, it underscores the importance of knowing 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 a mass mean or mass 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 of 0.1 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 of 99% 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 scrubber would not achieve the 0.12 Ib PMltsf level even ifthe static pressure drop

across the scrubber were at least 50 in. W.C.

Page 3
(

(

\.

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

stated by EPA. Similarly, the proviso in the above-described proposal -- that less than

1% ofthe kiln effluent must be less than one micrometer in order for the vendor to

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 micrometer range,

EPA has no basis for concluding that a scrubber with a 35-inch pressure 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 occur because (l) high efficiency venturi scrubbers are more costly than

baghouses, and (2) it is higWy doubtful that such scrubbers can meet the standard.

In addition to the environmental reasons for creating a subcategory for scrubberequipped kilns, 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 Flexibility Act

(SBREFA) Panel. 4 These submissions are incorporated by 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 than 40% ofthe kilns at lime plants owned by small businesses use wet air

pollution control devices (APCDs). Although replacing wet APCDs with baghouses will

decrease PM emissions at these plants somewhat, acid gas emissions will likely increase

significantly. For example, comments submitted by Linwood Mining & Minerals explain

that replacing 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 (Docket Item No. IIB-116, Appendix C).

The annualized cost of upgrading all scrubbers is $9.45 million, based on the

distribution ofkilns and EPA's estimate oftotal annualized costs (Docket Item No. 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 proposed rule for small lime

businesses. For Linwood, the proposed rule is predicted to reduce metal HAPs from kiln

stack gases by 481 pounds/year, with an attendant cost of $9.3 million/ton metal HAPs

removed (Docket Item 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, and therefore would be exempt from the

rule, EPA has provided no support for this assumption. However, applying this 30% assumption to

scrubber-equipped kilns would reduce the removal ofmetal HAPs attributed to upgrading scrubberequipped kilns to 2.2 tpy.

Page 4
(

I

\

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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 stringent permit limits for these kilns is 0.6Ib/tsf.

Attachment D provides a list of permit limits for scrubber-equipped kilns 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.

For the eight scrubber-equipped kilns with permit limits at or below 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 FOR NEW 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 ofCutler Magner's ESP-equipped kilns. Cutler Magner agreed to this

permit limit in order to avoid being subject to 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 test results 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-hour test results are just 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 ofthe National Lime Association

Simply taking the average or mean ... ofthe emissions data.. would not account

for the inherent variability of performance of well-designed and operated

emission controls, since individual emissions tests are based on short durations of

sampling, typically 3 hour tests (because 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. Cutler Magner also has a 4-field ESP-equipped kiln. It

was built in 1996, and has a higher PM 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 NLA believes

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 of liquid flow rate.

The proposed rule at Table 4 (§ 8 and 9) requires that gas stream pressure drop

and liquid flow rate be measured continuously. EPA selected these two parameters

because they are the scrubber operating parameters "most often monitored" and provide

an indication ofthe scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well

(preamble, at 78062). It's unclear whether EPA's statement regarding the widespread use

ofsuch parameters is based on monitoring practices at lime plants, or at source categories

in general. In any event, the information below indicates that the statement is inaccurate

regarding liquid flow rate.

Turning first to the commercial lime industry, Attachment F demonstrates that

most permits for lime plants do not require 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 and require more frequent inspections to ensure they are operating

properly" compared to devices that measure flow rate indirectly (Compliance Assurance

Monitoring (CAM) Guidance Document, at page 2-24). Most ofthe lime plants with

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

do, permits for 5 ofthem provide the option that scrubber pump amperage can be

6 EPA notes that "the company speculates that the higher levels during one ofthe runs may have been due

to excessive rapping in the final field ofthe ESP." If excessive rapping occurs during the very limited time

auring which compliance test are performed, it may occur during other times ofthe year as well.

Page 6
/

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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 scrubber pump 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 ofscrubber performance when

nozzles become plugged. For this 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 stated reason for

requiring that the latter parameter be monitored.

Turning to monitoring practices outside the lime industry, a review ofthe

monitoring examples in EPA's CAM guidance document reinforces the view that

measuring liquid flow rate is not widespread. The guidance document presents four

example CAM plans for scrubber-equipped kilns 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.

Based on the above, we recommend that Table 4 be revised to specify that liquid

flow rate can be 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 of parameters other than gas pressure drop if

pre-approval from the permitting authority is obtained.

Although gas stream pressure drop is usually required to be monitored at

scrubber-equipped kilns, this is not appropriate for all kiln types. For example, for double

shaft kilns, scrubber pressure drop is measurable only during the fuel firing cycle,

returning to zero during the reversing cycle. 8 For this reason, Arizona DEQ agreed in

June 2002 that establishing a limit for scrubber pressure drop in Chemical Lime's Title V

permit for its double shaft kiln at the Douglas plant would 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 Paper mills, the

lime MACT should be revised to allow the use of parameters other than gas pressure drop

if pre-approval from the state permitting agency is obtained.

7 Carmeuse's Millersville plant; Graymont's Bellefonte plant; Huron Lime's plant; Mercer Lime's plant;

and National Lime & Stone's plant.

S Fuel is fired in one shaft while exhaust gases are used to preheat the second shaft. After the 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

that was originally being fired. This cycle can be repeated as often as every eight minutes with a reversing

cycle ofless than one minute.

Page 7
(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

3. A single excursion from operating parameters recorded during a 3-hour

compliance test should not constitute a violation.

The proposed rule at Table 2 (§2) requires that the 3-hour rolling average liquid

flow rate and gas stream pressure drop levels be determined during each performance test

and subsequently maintained at or above these levels. A violation occurs ifthe 3-hour

rolling average ofthese parameters is below the 3-hour rolling average readings for these

parameters measured during the most recent performance test.

By contrast, for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure, a violation under the

NSPS does not occur unless the parameter reading is greater than 30 percent below 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 occur until the pressure drop is below 7 inches. The

NSPS kilns are the lime industry's top performers, and their monitoring regime should be

the benchmark against which monitoring under the MACT rule is prescribed.

The concept that permit terms should be based on more than 3 hours oftest data is

reaffIrmed in the Agency's CAM guidance document, which was updated as recently as

September 2000:

In many cases historical monitoring data, in addition to parameter data collected

during compliance tests, are useful or even necessary for establishing indicator

ranges. Typically, compliance tests are ofshort duration; three I-hr test runs, for

example. Use of only 3 hours ofparameter data may not be sufficient to fully

characterize parameter values during normal operation (CAM document, at pg 2-

26).

Similarly, the preamble to the lime MACT cautions against developing enforceable

standards based on 3-hour compliance tests:

Simply taking the average or mean. .. 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 hour tests ... 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 test provides insufficient data to base an emission limit, it

also is too short a timeframe on which to base an operating limit.

In none ofthe above-referenced example CAM plans for scrubbers does the

Agency base a permit limit on the 3-hour average reading that occurred during a

compliance test. By example, for Facility B, a "15 percent buffer" was added to the

average scrubber outlet temperature recorded during the performance test "to account for

Page 8
i

\

(

,

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

variability among the data" (Appendix A.2, pg. A-30). Similarly, for Facility S, a

differential pressure of greater than 10 inches in the water column (W.C.) was selected as

the permit limit, even though, over the course of nine hours of compliance tests (three M.

5 tests), the three-hour average pressure drop was 12 in. W.C. --- again, about a 15

percent buffer 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 concurrent PM test data for three kilns. For each ofthem, gas pressure drop

during one or more I-hour runs 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 performed by the industry's top performers. Alternatively, like the Pulp and Paper

MACT, the rule should specify that a violation ofthe standard does not occur unless 6 or

more 3-hour average parameter values are recorded outside the established range within

the 6 month reporting period. In either case, rather than restrict the parameter values used

to establish the operating permit limit to those recorded during the most recent

performance test, the rule should allow the use ofparameter values 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 parameter readings for well designed and operated scrubbers.

Furthermore, because the rule provides no acceptable tolerance to account for

inherent process and control system variability and parameter measurement error, plant

operators may need to conduct a series of performance 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 particular kiln. 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 ofthe National Lime Association

Based on a review ofrecent MACT rules, the lime MACT is unique because it

includes both accuracy and minimum tolerance criteria for measurement devices. For

example, within the last two months, MACT rules have been proposed for Iron and Steel

Foundries (67 Fed. Reg, 78,309), Primary Magnesium Refining (68 Fed. Reg 2,983), and

Plywood and Composite Wood Products (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 whether measurements are close to the "true value."

However, the purpose of parametric monitoring in the lime MACT is to observe changes

in the value of a parameter relative to what was recorded during the performance test.

Sometimes this is referred to as precision, or repeatability ofresults obtained from using

a measuring device. It is the precision of a 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

FOR KILNS WITH DRY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES

1. The proposed requirements in § 63.7113(d)(1) and (e)(l) that bag leak

detectors (BLDs) and particulate monitoring devices (PMDs) be certified by the

manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM at or below 10 mg/m3 should be deleted

because no specifications exist on which to base the certification.

The proposed certification requirement offers no assurance that a BLD or PMD is

a reliable indicator of PM at or below 10 mg/m3 because there are no procedures or

specifications for conducting tests to make this determination. For example, the rule does

not address whether tests ofthe actual device are required, or under what conditions such

tests are to be conducted. How are other factors that affect BLD or PMD response such as

measurement principal, 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 or for a

particular model? Is the certification a one-time test or must it be repeated periodically?

Can the certification be based simply on the judgment ofthe instrument developer

without. conducting any tests at all?

Furthermore, there are no means available to the lime plant operator to verify

claims made by the BLD or PMD vendor or manufacturer regarding measurement

sensitivity, or any design or performance characteristic. By contrast, an extensive series

ofrequirements exist for continuous opacity monitors (COMs), and associated technical

procedures exist that are well understood by manufacturers, industrial users, EPA, state

and local agencies, state field inspectors and others. Numerous technical specifications

Page 10
(

I

,

\

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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 with Design 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 (if desired) 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 must be performed at the time the instrument is

installed and "certified" including clear path calibration and zero alignment,

calibration error tests, response time tests, and zero and upscale 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 not been developed for BLDs or PMDs, the

certification requirement in proposed § 63.7113(d)(l) and (e)(I) should be deleted. Lime

plant operators can only exercise reasonable care in the selection of particular BLD or

PMD devices. Lime plant operators cannot be responsible for the design or performance

ofthese systems.

2. The requirements in §63.7113(d)(6) and (e)(6) that BLDs 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" (not recommendations), and provide lime

plants with the flexibility to use alternate procedures where justified in the plant's

OM&Mplan.

In the absence ofindustry-based consensus (or EPA) 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 not be appropriate or where a better approach can be used. As

experience is gained in the application ofthese devices, the regulated users (plant

Page 11
(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

operators) are best able to detennine what procedures to use for their facilities.

Therefore, §63.7113(d)(6) and (e)(6) should be revised to require adherence to the

manufacturer's written specifications and operating procedures (rather than

"recommendations") except where other procedures are determined to be more

appropriate and are described and justified 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 subject to

specifications that enable third party evaluation of their performance.

The purpose ofthe monitoring requirement is to detect bag failures and to provide

an indication of "relative changes in particle mass loading" (i.e., PM emissions)

(preamble, at 78,062). COMs have been used 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 over time.

EPA has suggested that BLDs are preferable to COMs because BLDs are more

sensitive. But, as explained above, no specifications exist on which to base a

manufacturer's claim that its BLD is ultra-sensitive. COMs, on the other hand, have two

attributes needed to assure compliance with the PM standard: the capability of detecting

changes in fabric filter performance at concentrations corresponding to the proposed PM

standard, and specifications to ensure that the COM is doing its job.

A COM's sensitivity depends on the path length (i.e. internal duct or stack

diameter at the installed measurement location). The longer the optical path length, the

more sensitive the measurement. For one-meter path 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 equipped with COMs have stack diameters (or optical lengths) greater than one

meter. Thus, these COMs are capable ofmeeting the sensitivity requirement proposed for

BLDs.

The preamble states that COMs are "generally considered good "catastrophic"

control equipment indicators using opacity generally above levels greater than 10%

opacity" due to measurement uncertainties 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 of calibration attenuators [i.e., filters] for opacity levels below 6

percent;

(2) minimum full scale range of 80 percent opacity required of COMS in PS-1;

and

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

Page 12
(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

(3) error associated with calibration error allowances, zero and upscale drift

specifications, and mandatory drift adjustment levels, and imprecision

associated with the allowed compensation for dust accumulation (preamble, at

78,063).

However, the above sources ofmeasurement uncertainty are not as significant as

EPA suggests. To begin with, filters are available for opacity levels below 6 percent.

About a year ago, EPA purchased a series oflow-level calibration attenuators (3, 6 and

8% opacity) for a round-robin evaluation by 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 equipment in the United States.

Regarding PS-l 's minimum range requirement of 80 percent, Section 1.3 of PS-l

states, "At your option, you the source owner or operator, may select to establish a

reduced full scale range of no less than 50 percent opacity instead ofthe 80 percent as

prescribed in section 3.5."

The applicability section ofPS-1 supplies a further indication that EPA's abovelisted concerns with measurement uncertainty are overstated. Section 1.3 ofPS-1 states

that the 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 ifit believed that COM measurement

uncertainty is so impaired.

In any event, our understanding is that those who have voiced concerns about

measurement uncertainty at low opacity levels would agree that, at worst, the factors

listed by EPA introduce a total bias (measurement inaccuracy) of 3 to 4% opacity.

Although the presence ofbias makes any determination of absolute opacity inaccurate, it

has no affect on the ability of a COMS to detect changes in opacity at a partic"!llar facility

-- and hence changes in control equipment performance over time. Detecting relative

changes in mass loading is all that BLDs are capable of doing (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, if a COM is required

under the Clean Air Act or state or local law, it must be used to satisfy the requirements

of the 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 13
Comments ojthe National Lime Association

pennits -- require CaMs for lime kilns. For such kilns, CaMs cannot be removed. Thus,

requiring BLDs or PMDs 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, it has requested

comment on what an appropriate MACT floor opacity limit should be 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 submitted infonnation to EPA on

PM limits for the 6 top-performing kilns. These kilns have opacity limits of 15%, except

for Cutler Magner's kiln no. 3, which has a 20% opacity limit. Also, as noted by EPA,

NLA has submitted opacity data from one ofthe top perfonning kilns (Black River, kiln

4) that shows that the kiln's opacity often ranges between 10 to 15% (see Feb 19

presentation to SBREFA panel, slides 65 and 66). Additional examples of opacity data in

the range of 10% to 15% from kilns with low PM limits and low actual emissions are

provided in Attachment H. 10

In September 2002, EPA prepared a summary of opacity data for selected kilns

(Docket Item No. II-B-125). The document states that "tested opacity" for three kilns

was zero, and was 0.9. for a fourth kiln. The document neglects to mention that the data

was not obtained from COMs, but rather from visible emission observations (VEO) using

EPA Method 9. As summarized in Attachment I, these data are not reliable for

establishing an opacity standard for lime kilns because most ofthe observations were

made under poor viewing conditions (i.e., overcast or cloudy skies), and were collected

for extremely briefperiods 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 contrast between the plume and

background. Method 9 states:

Studies ofthe theory of plume opacity and field studies have demonstrated that a

plume is most visible and presents the greatest apparent opacity when viewed

against a contrasting background....Under conditions presenting a less contrasting

background, the apparent opacity of a plume is less and approaches zero as the

color and luminescenc~ contrast decrease toward zero. As a result, significant

negative bias and negative errors can be made when a plume is viewed under less

contrasting conditions.

10 Western Lime's Eden Kiln I is an EPA-designated ''top performer." Graymont's Kiln 3 at Cricket

Mountain has a permit limit of 0.135 Ib PM/tsfand M.5 test results of 0.043 PM/tsfbased on an 10/28/96

test. Graymont's Kiln 4 at Cricket Mountain has a permit limit of 0.162 Ib PM/tsfand M.5 test results of

0.02 PM/tsfbased on an 6/15/98 test. Chemical Lime's Apex Kiln 4 has a permit limit of 0.2 Ib PM/tsfand

M.5 test results of 0.05 Ib PM/tsfbased on an 11/19/97 test.

Page 14
(

\

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

Most ofthe YEO data cited in the docket was collected during poor viewing

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 that perfonnance test data are a "snapshot" in time, and

are not sufficient to represent variability of perfonnance 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 can be significant. Examination of

COM data shows that both the average values and nature of excursions to higher levels

vary significantly. Despite best efforts, some sources of variation are beyond the control

of the 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 of the stone reserve. Even for a

particular facility, variations in opacity cannot be characterized by examining a few hours

or days, much less a few minutes ofVEO data obtained during a particulate perfonnance

test.

In summary, the data NLA has previously submitted, together with the

supplemental data in Attachment H, demonstrate that a 15% opacity standard is

warranted. NLA believes that promulgating 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 best performing sources, there

will be opacity excursions above the prescribed limit. This is reflected in the Pulp and

Paper MACT for lime kilns, which specifies (l) a time period over which opacity

readings greater than 20% are a violation ofthe PM standard (i.e., an enforceable

standard), and (2) a time period over which opacity readings greater than 20% indicate

that a problem may exist with the baghouse and that it should be examined (i.e., a

"corrective action" trigger). Based on the time frames in the Pulp & Paper MACT, and

the proposed opacity limit of 15% in the lime MACT, NLA proposes that the final rule

specify the following:

• PM violation: opacity readings greater than 15% for more than 6% ofthe

operating time within any quarterly period

• Corrective action trigger: the average of 10 consecutive 6-minute averages

is greater than 15% opacity.

However, recognizing that EPA has not responded 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 streamlined reporting when excess emissions are less

than 1 percent ofthe total operating time for the reporting period. Implicit in this

Page 15
Comments ofthe National Lime Association

provision is the recognition that sources cannot be in compliance all ofthe time.

Accordingly, at a minimum, the proposed lime MACT should state that opacity readings

greater than 15% for less than 1% ofthe reporting period are not considered to be a

violation.

7. EPA should clarify that only COMS installed, relocated, or substantially

refurbished after February 6, 2001 must comply with the version of PS-l revised

on August 10, 2000.

The proposed rule at § 63.7114 (g) states that each COMs used to monitor an air

pollution control device must be 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

after February 6, 2001.

Many COMS at lime plants were certified to meet the PS-l requirements in effect

at the time ofinstallation. Due to the new test procedures and requirements included in

ASTM D62l6-98 -- adopted by 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 cost to re-certify a single monitor would exceed

the cost of a new monitor due to the test regime specified in the ASTM standard.

Accordingly, the preamble to the fmal rule should clarify that only COMS installed,

relocated, or substantially refurbished after February 6, 2001 must comply with the

version of PS-l revised on August 10, 2000.

8. PM CEMS should not be 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 proposed revisions. The comments

explain that EPA's proposed approach is cumbersome, overly expensive, and

unsupported by its own data. We understand that EPA plans to promulgate revisions to

PS-ll soon that, according to EPA EMC representatives, will make it much easier to

implement. When these regulations are made available to the public, this assertion can be

evaluated.

EPA has requested comment on how to establish a CEM-based PM standard for

lime kilns. The relation of a PM CEMS-based emission limit to the proposed PM limit

must take into account (a) the accuracy and precision ofthe reference method, (b) the

accuracy and precision 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 other non-representative conditions as well as start-up shut down, and

Page 16
(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

malfunctions, (f) averaging period(s), and (g) enforcement policy, along with numerous

other factors.

The inherent variations in lime kiln emissions must also be taken into account in

developing a PM CEMS based limit. These variations are due to many factors including

type oflime kiln, fuels and fuel combinations, feed material variations, process

conditions, control equipment performance (long and short term effects), and type of

product manufactured. All ofthese factors and sources of variation 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 either BLDs or COMs. EPA's guidance document for BLDs recognizes

that this would be very costly, stating that the document does not apply to this type of

baghouse (BLD Guidance Document, pg 2). COMs are even more costly.

Austin White Lime, a small business, illustrates the severe hardship ofthe lime

MACT. Its positive-pressure baghouse has eight compartments. Under the proposed rule,

each compartment would 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-equipped kilns to

demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM limit: COMs, PM detectors, and

parametric monitoring (i.e., monitoring of current and voltage). PM detectors are

analogous to certain bag leak detectors (BLDs), and using them on ESPs is problematic

for the reasons described above for baghouse-equipped kilns. Other BLDs (triboflow,

and electro dynamic instruments) cannot be used due to static electrical charges.

Regarding the parametric monitoring option, the proposed rule at Table 2 (§3)

requires that the 3-hour rolling average current and voltage to each field be determined

during each performance test and subsequently maintained at or above these levels. A

violation occurs ifthe 3-hour rolling average ofthese parameters is below the 3-hour

rolling average measured during the most recent performance test.

As explained in Cutler Magner'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 ofCutler Magner's ESPs is

capable ofmeeting the proposed limit with only three fields. A fourth field was built in

Page 17
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

case any ofthe fIrst three experienced a failure. For such an ESP, if one ofthe fIelds

records a low voltage, it does not signify that the PM standard has been exceeded because

the entire fIeld could be de-energized and the ESP would still meet the standard (see

Docket Item 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 submitted by NLA and recommendations by the

SBREFA Panel, EPA agreed to not regulate stone handling operations in the quarry,

relying on the cement MACT as a precedent. For cement plants, the fIrst unit subject to

regulation is referred to as the "raw material storage bin," with raw material being stone,

sand, clay or other materials 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 could be construed as referring to

unprocessed (i.e., raw or pre-processed) stone, Accordingly, for example, in the

applicability section ofthe rule at §63.7082, the rule would be changed as follows:

(g) The fIrst emission unit in the sequence of MPG processed stone handling

operations that is subject to the subpart is the raw material processed 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 prior to further processing or loading."

On April 5, 2002, EPA amended the cement MACT to add the following .

defInition: "Bin means a manmade enclosure for storage ofraw materials ..." The

purpose ofthe amendment is to clarify that storage piles are not subject to the rule.

Correspondingly, this clarity is needed in the lime MACT. Piles should not be subject to

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 of processed limestone prior to its use as lime

kiln feed."

3. The rule should not require the use of proposed Methods 203A, 203B, and/or

203C to measure opacity from fugitive sources.

Page 18
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

The proposed opacity limit of 10% for fugitive sources is based on Method 9,6-

minute averages. 11 EPA has requested comment on whether proposed Methods 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 would be used

and what the corresponding opacity limit would be.

Methods 203A, B, and C were proposed on November 22, 1993, and impose

different, and generally shorter averaging times than Method 9. 12 The rulemaking record

contains no information demonstrating the feasibility of complying with the 10% opacity

limit with an averaging time less than 6 minutes. Absent such information, EPA has no

basis for requiring the use of Methods 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 proposed rule sets forth that stone handling operations are generally

subject to 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

emission unit 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 that EPA's impinger-based Method 26 cannot be used to

demonstrate that a plant 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, except the averaging period can be shorter than that of

Method 9. It also contains a procedure on how 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 (never to exceed) rules. It

requires a I-minute average, using readings at either 5-second or 15-second intervals.

13 Although continuous parametric monitoring is required for scrubber controlled processed stone

handling, we are unaware of any processed stone handling controlled by scrubbers.

Page 19
(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

be biased low (i.e., understates actual emissions). To ensure that lime plants are not

required to use costly and complex FTIR for testing HCl, NLA sponsored the

development of an impinger-based method that resolves EPA's concerns with the bias of

Method 26-derived data. In order to receive ASTM's approval ofthe method, both the

bias and precision oftest data using 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 of analyte (HCl) to a sample of actual

gas. The "spiked" sample is analyzed using 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 "statistically insignificant bias 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 of 48 runs were within that range. It should

be noted that the purpose ofthe ±30% target recovery was to validate the method - and

not as acceptance criteria for all subsequent tests using the method.

To validate the impinger-based method's precision (i.e., the ability ofthe method

to get close to the same answer each time in repeat measurements on the same material),

the consistency of HCl results between paired 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 at 40 C.F.R. Part

63, section 6.3.1.2, which states that the RSD must be less than 50%.

EPA's Proposed Criteria for Valid HCI Test Results

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 and bias in the ASTM method. Furthermore, the, rule

would deem HCl test results as (1) unacceptably biased ifthe spike recovery is greater

than ±30% ofthe concentration ofthe spike and (2) unacceptably imprecise ifthe

difference (relative standard deviation or RSD) between paired-train test results is

greater than 20% ofthe mean.

14 Validation ofTesting ofthe Draft ASTM Impinger Method for Measuring Gaseous Chloride Emissions

from Mineral Calciners at Mississippi Lime (Oct. 2000) and Chemical Lime (Nov. 2000)(Attachment 1)

15 Paired runs consist oftwo impinger trains operated simultaneously at the same sampling location.

Page 20
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

The Proposed Bias Criterion Should be Deleted,

or at Least Revised to Invalidate Only Results That are Biased Low.

Analyte spiking is a complex procedure, as evidenced by the failure by EPA's

contractors to perform it correctly at most ofthe Agency-sponsored FTIR testing oflime

plants. 16 Thus, analyte spiking should not be imposed unless there is a valid basis for

questioning the bias of a test method's results. As noted above, the ASTM determined

that Method D 6735-0 I has a "statistically insignificant 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 each HCI'test.

Furthermore, even if there is a legitimate basis for concern regarding bias, for the

purpose of ensuring that a lime plant is an area source, only test results that are biased

excessively low should be invalidated. Therefore, at most, test results should be

invalidated only ifthe spike recovery is less than 70% ofthe concentration ofthe spike.

Also, as discussed in comments submitted by Bison Engineering, if analyte spiking is

required, EPA should confirm that the three-run test requirement in the ASTM method is

satisfied with two non-spiked runs and a third spike run.

The Proposed Precision 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 that the

method can meet EPA's precision criteria for method validation at 40 C.F.R. Part 63,

section 6.3.1.2, which states that the RSD must be less than 50%.

However, without explanation, the proposed rule would impose a much more

stringent precision test (i.e., RSD of20%). Nowhere in the ASTM method is a numeric

criterion for RSD specified. 18 Furthermore, this criterion is 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 of a

ppm difference between paired trains. As HCI concentrations increase, the allowable

difference between paired trains would be several ppm.

16 "Spiking was conducted at the lime plants with Hel concentrations below 10 ppm both 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)." Petitioner National Lime Association's Supplemental Non-Binding Statement of Issues, pg 10

(Dec. 27, 1999) (Attachment K).

17 As explained in the preamble to the proposed cement MACT 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 impinger method is

±20%, this has nothing to do with the method's precision.

Page 21
(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

Because the precisiOli criterion has nothing to do with ensuring the accuracy or

bias of data generated by the ASTM method -- EPA's stated reason for disallowing the

use ofMethod 26 -- lime plants should not be required to conduct paired runs in order to

demonstrate that test results 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 proposed precision and bias criteria is EPA's

continued practice of allowing source categories to use Method 26 data. For example, as

recently as January 22,2003, EPA proposed to allow the use of Method 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 out to

meet unreasonably difficult HCI test requirements.20 Even within the lime MACT itself,

EPA's position on the validity ofMethod 26 data is inconsistent, because the Agency

has concluded that Method 26 data alone can be used to determine that lime kilns at

sugar plants are area sources (Docket Item Nos. II-B-44 & 81), but not 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 that Method 26 understates HCI emissions.

An ASTM committee has concluded that Method D 6735-01 generates data that has no

statistically significant bias. It is arbitrary and unreasonable for the Agency to burden the

commercial lime industry - half ofwhich is comprised ofsmall businesses - with a

requirement to conduct analyte spiking to prove that HCI test results are unbiased.

Likewise, requiring paired runs to comply with a precision criteria is not warranted

because (1) EPA has never raised 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 and precision criteria for HCI test

results obtained using 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 of all kilns.

19 Other recent rules that require the use of Method 26 to measure HCl are the proposed MACTs 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 Fed Reg. 17,762, Apr. 11,

2002).

20 Petitioner National Lime Association's Supplemental Non-Binding Statement ofIssues in Cement

MACT Litigation, pg 13 (Dec. 27, 1999) (Attachment K).

21 EPA's reply that the Cement MACT also disallows the use ofMethod 26 data for area source

demonstrations is not persuasive because the cement industry asked EPA for an alternative to Method 26

due to the industry's concerns that M. 26 generates biased data (Cement Docket Item No. II-D-151).

Page 22
Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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 start up every kiln for the purpose of conducting 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 of conducting HCI testing when

market conditions do not justify doing so. For example, if an 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 of kilns 3 and 4 would establish HCI emissions for most ofthe plant's capacity.

Emissions for kilns 1 and 2 could be estimated based upon results oftesting kilns 3

and/or 4. Determination of the plant's area source status would be based upon 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 of all kilns at a lime plant is necessary in order to

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% of PM emissions from kiln stacks and 0.07%

from stone handling operations

Area source determinations under the cement MACT allow cement plants to

assume that HAP metals emissions constitute 1% of PM emissions. Although this 1%

emission factor overstates actual metal emissions, cement plant operators have used this

value in area source determinations to avoid the high costs ofmetal emission testing and

Page 23
(

(

i

\

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

because HAP metals emissions will not significantly affect the major source

determination.

The quantity ofmetal HAPs emitted from lime plants is sufficiently low that it is

highly unlikely that such metals will be present in quantities that would have any effect

on whether a commercial lime plant exceeds the 25 ton per year major source threshold

for all HAPs. The HAP metal content oflime kiln emissions is 0.15% (Docket Item No.

II-B-43) -- approximately one-tenth the HAP metal content of cement kiln PM emissions.

The HAP metal content offugitive stone emissions is 0.07% (Docket Item No. 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 present in 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 of organic HAPs

because inorganic limestone is the only feed material processed. This is different than

cement kilns which process a variety offeed materials, some of which contain organic

carbon such as petroleum or kerogens. For example, one cement kiln operator conducted

an extensive study that attributed high THC emissions from a cement kiln to the shale

used in the raw materials (Cement MACT Docket Item No. II-I-107).

Several states have confirmed that lime kiln feed material does not contain

kerogens (Lime Docket Items Nos. II-E-25, II-E-26, II-E-27). EPA's testing of 10

commercial lime kilns detected virtually no organic HAPs (Docket Item No. II-B-121),

so it is highly unlikely that such compounds will be present in quantities that would have

any effect on whether a commercial lime plant exceeds the 25 ton per year major source

threshold for all HAPs. At the one plant at which "screening" tests indicated the presence

of organic 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 ppmv per kiln).

Lime kilns at sugar beet facilities have been exempted from the lime MACT, and

thus are not required to measure emissions of any HAPs, including organic HAPs. No

analysis of organic 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 not be measured.

5. The requirement in § 63.7142(b) to use FTIR, Method 18 or ASTM D6420-99

if organics testing is conducted for area source determinations should be deleted.

The proposed requirement creates the inference that organics testing should be

conducted, and that testing beyond the 36 volatile organics specified in the ASTM

Page 24
(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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

"highest production 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 should be revised to specify that Method 5 and 5D testing must be

conducted based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal

operating conditions)."

2. Reports should be required only for malfunctions, not startups and

shutdowns.

The proposed rule at § 63.7121(b) requires that lime plants report each

exceedance of a lime MACT limit, including periods ofstartup, shutdown and

malfunction. However, in recent proposed amendments to the General Provisions in

Subpart A ofPart 63, EPA has determined that requiring 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 appear to 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 should revise

§ 63.7121 (b) to require reporting ofonly malfunctions that result in an exceedance of a

lime MACT limit.

3. The final rule should provide a risk-based exemption from the entire rule

(not just 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 combustion turbines,

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 under the proposed rule at

§ 63.711(b).

Page 25
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

should be provided in MACT standards that impose substantial costs while achieving

negligible reductions in risks to public health. As described elsewhere in these comments

and in previous NLA submissions to the Agency, the lime MACT fits this description.

Accordingly, if EPA makes a policy decision to include in MACT rules an exemption for

individual plants, or a subcategory of plants, 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 per year (tpy). A more

accurate estimate is less than 4 tpy. As will be shown in detail below, EPA has

overlooked information previously 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 overstated three sources of PM 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

Other Material Handling & Controlled SHOs :l4 4,411 4,411

New SHOs 2,548 2,548

Total 31,861 12,677

Baseline Emissions

Uncontrolled Existing Kilns: Two-thirds of EPA's baseline emissions for existing kilns

are from uncontrolled kilns; i.e., kilns not controlled with baghouses, ESPs, or scrubbers.

23 Preamble, pg. 78,064 and Docket Item No. II-B-131, Tables 4 and 9.

24 EPA's estimate includes solid fuel handling units, which is peculiar given that these units are not subject

to the proposed Lime MACT. EPA assumes that controlled stone handling units already use baghouses.

Page 26
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

EPA uses an emission factor of 35 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 for uncontrolled kilns from 11,177 to 412 tons-see Attachment L.

New kilns: EPA assumes that 4,555,000 tons of capacity will be built in the next 5 years.

This new capacity and related emissions are estimated by EPA to result from the

following:

• Rotary kilns: 3,900,000 tons of new 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 emit nearly 5,000 tons of

PM each year.

However, a review of permits for the lime industry issued in recent years reveals

that new rotary kilns have been subject to requirements at levels corresponding, on

average, to about 0.13 Ib/tsf. 28 Regarding double shaft vertical kilns, because most such

kilns have been idled recently due to the high price of natural gas,29 it is unlikely that

655,000 tons of new 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 of 0.13 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 of 32 Ib PM/ton lime. To reflect the apparent change to

35 Ib PM/ton lime, Attachment L is a revised version ofAttachment H to NLA's comments to the SBREFA

Panel submitted on January 15,2002.

26 Docket Item 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), Cutler Magner kiln 4 (0.12 Ib PM/tst) and Chemical Lime St. Genevieve

(0. I7 Ib/tsf)

29 Examples ofgas-fired, double shaft vertical 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 ofthe National Lime Association

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, a more reliable emission

factor for such units is 0.0383 lb PM!tsf. 32 This emission factor is more reliable because

it is rated "C" and was 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 ofnet reductions

is about 2,500 tpy ofPM, which corresponds to 3.5 tpy HAP metals -- about one-seventh

ofEPA's estimate as reflected in the chart and described below.

As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that NLA's reduction estimates

summarized below were calculated using EPA's methodology, as follows:

• For kilns, reductions are the difference between baseline 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 after regulation, but different baselines.

EPA and NLA's reduction estimates for existing kilns are reduced by 30% to

represent area sources exempt from MACT regulation.

• For uncontrolled stone handling operations, emissions reductions are estimated as

a percentage ofthe baseline. The NLA and EPA estimates both use 90 percent,

30 Source of emission factor: Chapter 11.17 ofAP-42 entitled "Lime Manufacturing."

31 Docket Item No. II-B-120, Table 4.

32 Source of emission factor: Chapter 11.19 ofAP-42 for "Crushed Stone Processing."

33 For a detailed explanation as to why this emission factor is more reliable than that referred to in footnote

8, see Docket Item No. No. II-B-116, Appendix C, pp. 10-12, Attachment E.

34 67 Fed. Reg. 78,064 and II-B-131, Tables 7 and 10.

Page 28
(

(

Comments o/the National Lime Association

but use different baselines. 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

Other Material 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 (corrected baseline emission factor) - 0.24 (after MACT

regulation)). Based on 638,661 tpy oflime production, this corresponds to 335 tpy of

PM. 36 Because EPA assumes that emission reductions are reduced by 30% to represent

area sources exempt from the rule, this reduces estimated reductions to 235 tpy PM, or

0.4 tpy metals. 37

New Kilns: The difference between NLA's estimate ofthe average PM limits for new

kilns (0.13 lb/tsf) and the proposed limit of 0.10 lb/tsfin the lime MACT is 0.03 lb/tsf

(0.06lb/ton lime). This value, multiplied by EPA's estimate of 4,555,000 tpy of capacity

results in PM reductions of 137 tpy, and metal HAP reductions of 0.2 tpy.

Existing, Uncontrolled Stone Handling Units: Based on a control efficiency of 90%, 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 of EPA's and NLA's estimated benefits ofthe rule, we used the 30% area source

assumption here. It should be noted that in the discussion of benefits attributable to a 0.12 vs 0.6 lb PMltsf

limit for scrubber-equipped kilns, we assumed all scrubber-equipped kilns are major sources. Using the

30% area source assumption would decrease the estimated metal HAPs reduction resulting from a 0.121b

PMltsflimit by about one tpy (see pg 1 of our comments).

36 NLA estimates PM emissions for uncontrolled existing kilns are reduced by 335 tpy, from 412 to 77 tpy.

EPA estimates they are reduced by 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 ofthe National Lime Association

Because EPA assumes that emission reductions are reduced by 30% to represent area

sources exempt from the rule, this reduces the estimated reductions to 119 tpy PM, or 0.1

tpy metals (using EPA's factor of 0.00069 lb metals/lb SHO PM).

Conclusion

As the Agency considers NLA's requests to revise the MACT rule, NLA believes

it is important for EPA policy makers to have an accurate accounting ofthe

environmental benefits attributed to the rule. Accordingly, we believe that EPA should

either reflect NLA estimates in the preamble to the fmal rule, orprovide a reasoned

response to our comments that EPA's estimates are overstated. As noted above, we

believe the best estimate of metal HAP reductions is 3.5 tons (7,000 pounds) per year.

Based on the 56 lime plants predicted to be subject to the MACT rule, this translates into

an annual reduction in metal HAPs per lime plant of 124 pounds.

5. The Economic Impact Analysis is seriously flawed because it erroneously

assumes lime producers can pass control costs through to customers.

The draft Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the Lime MACT is based on

inaccurate assumptions, and reaches conclusions inconsistent with the realities ofthe lime

industry. Specifically, it bases its impact projections on the proposition that lime

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 cannot be 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 offset to a

significant degree by increased lime prices, are not accurate, and thus EPA's estimate of

the number of plant closures and other impacts resulting from the rule are likewise

flawed.

Background

NLA and its members have long been concerned about the potential cost impacts

ofthe Lime MACT, especially when compared to the very modest environmental

benefits potentially available. In particular, NLA recognized that iflime 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-hit by 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

explained that EPA'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 ofthe National Lime Association

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 point was further emphasized and demonstrated by NLA and

its small-business members in meetings with the SBREFA Panel.

The SBREFA Panel responded to this information with the following

recommendation:

Recommend that EPA 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 that the "EIA does include

the aforementioned considerations and analyses." However, as explained in more detail

below, the draft EIA 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 draft EIA concludes that increased control costs will cause lime prices to rise

2.1 percent (in both the with and without PM CEMS scenarios). Under both scenarios,

EPA predicts that two small lime producers will close because the control costs will

eliminate their profits. At the 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

higher prices. Although economic models are useful tools, they become

counterproductive and misleading when their underlying assumptions deviate from

reality. That reality is described below.

The Realities ofthe Lime Market Make It Impossible 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 ofthe National Lime Association

downward trend since 1986." (EIA, pg. 2-15). Most lime companies, especially small

ones, are already barely covering expenses. There simply is no "give" in the price of

lime. There are a number ofreasons for this situation, as described below.

The Commercial Lime Market Is Already Highly Competitive Due to Overcapacity

The EIA does not adequately take into account the fact that the domestic lime

market in the United States is already characterized by 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 of a 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 of over 300,000 tons as a result ofthe rule. 38 This, however, is still only a

small portion ofthe overcapacity that already exists. Any suggestion that the price of

lime will rise because of a 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 of additional 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 other words, the typical supply elasticity analysis, which assumes that the

current price is based on an equilibrium between supply and demand, is not applicable to

the lime market. Perhaps the confusion arises from the erroneous idea that current supply

oflime is the same as the quantity oflime that is currently produced. For many

manufactured materials,. increasing supply requires new factories and other capital

investment. For lime, this is not the case because all the capital equipment needed to

produce more lime is already in place. Thus, closure oftwo (or more) lime plants will

not reduce the quantity oflime available to a point anywhere near the 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 right that its rule would cause closures ofsome lime plants, it is highly

unlikely that other lime plants would reduce production because ofincreased production costs. The rule

will primarily require costly retrofits ofkiln equipment, and most ofthe costs will not vary a great deal

with production. Rather than reducing production at a kiln, ifthe costs are too high for profitable

operation, a kiln will simply be shut down entirely. Then the remaining producers will increase production

in order to capture the business represented by the closed producers, and to generate as much revenue as

possible to absorb the added control costs.

Page 32
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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 not be subject to the added costs ofthe

MACT rule. Clearly, those domestic producers that compete with these foreign suppliers

will not be able to raise their prices. 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 paper industry.

At present, commercial lime producers make significant lime sales to paper plants during

upset conditions, when the captive lime facilities are off-line. Commercial producers

cannot raise their prices for these sales, because the pulp and paper plants would simply

manufacture and store more lime at their own facilities, which they could do at a much

lower cost.

Sugar manufacturers, which EPA does not intend to regulate in this rule, typically

operate their kilns only seasonally. However, ifthe price oflime went up, it would 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 not be 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 stiff competition 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

magnesia.. d fr Ch' 39 Importe om mao

39 This point was emphasized by 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 a plant only a few miles away from the customer in Iowa--even

though lime itselfis far from an expensive product, and even though lime is superior to magnesia in

important respects.

Page 33
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

The existence of these competing products means that EPA's assumption about

price elasticity of demand for lime is inaccurate. Ifthe price oflime is increased, the

demand for lime will drop much more than EPA has indicated. Lime producers are

aware ofthis, and thus are well aware that they cannot raise prices, even iftheir costs

increase.

Most Lime Markets Are Extremely Resistant to Price Increases

Aside from the fact that they have access to competing products, most major lime

markets are extremely resistant to price increases for other reasons. For example, the

steel and paper industries, both major lime users, are mature industries that are struggling

to compete with foreign imports themselves. They are unable to raise their prices, and

thus are unable to tolerate increased prices for raw materials. Other markets, such as

water treatment, involve municipalities that must tightly control costs. Many ofthese

sales are made through competitive bids for long-term contracts, and the customers will

not allow later price modifications based on increased costs.

Recent History Proves Lime Producers Cannot Raise Prices

As noted above, four lime plants closed in 2000, and a number of others have

closed in recent years. These closures did not result in increased prices for lime, but

instead real prices have declined. Indeed, in many cases the closures occurred because of

increased costs that could not be passed through to customers. A significant portion of

the closed facilities were gas-fired kilns, and when gas prices increased, lime customers

would not accept a fuel surcharge. The business went to other lime producers, or to other

products entirely. But the market as a whole remained sufficiently competitive that there

were no real cost increases.

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 even without 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 that the price oflime will

increase, offsetting the costs. As shown above, there will be no such price increase, and

the cost increases will have to be directly and completely absorbed by the lime producers.

Accordingly, in any case in which the costs ofthe rule exceed the current profits 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 that have such kilns, not just two.

In Table 4-4 ofthe EIA, EPA sets out potential impacts ifsmall businesses are

obligated to absorb the full control costs. In that table, EPA shows that for half of all

such small lime businesses, control costs would amount to more than 3% oflime salesPage 34
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

this in a group with average profits estimated to 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 should be added that even if 5.7% is an

accurate average profit margin, it is the distribution of actual profit margins that will

determine how many facilities will close-ifthere are a few comfortably profitable

operations and many marginally profitable operations, all ofthe latter could be forced to

close.

Finally, it most be added that the closure of even two small lime companies is a

serious matter. EPA has estimated that about 100 people will lose their livelihoods as a

result. NLA believes - based on the facts set out in these comments - that the

environmental benefits ofthe entire rule are so minimal that they do not justify the

financial upheaval that these 100 people and their families will experience, not to

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 of a

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 not be able to raise prices, the authors ofthe EIA did

not actually analyze the facts NLA provided. Indeed, the EIA continues to maintain that

its chosen parameter values are "reasonable given the currently available data and

information." (EIA, at B-1) It is difficult to see how this can be the case, when the

parameters are based on general assumptions and estimates drawn from other industries,

while NLA and its members presented information from the lime industry demonstrating

that the parameters are inaccurate.

Instead of actually 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 closer to 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 than purchasers ofPortland cement and lime suppliers have

only limited ability to change the quantity they supply in response to price changes."

Under this scenario, EPA predicts an overall decline in production of over

400,000 tons, and a 0.5% price increase. Although this might seem like a modest price

increase, for a commodity as highly competitive as lime, it is extremely significant.

Under the realities ofthe market, it would simply not occur. In the real market, those

companies that could absorb the additional costs would do so, reducing their profits

without raising their prices. 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 could be

Page 35
(

(

(

Comments ofthe National Lime Association

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 half oftheir

pre-tax earnings under either the with or without PM CEMS scenario. (Table B-3) This

would be a devastating impact, and it is 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 impact will be even greater.

At the very least, EPA should have used the B2 scenario to generate the economic

estimates featured in the preamble and the main text 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 of economic impact that will be suffered by regulated companies,

especially small businesses. Indeed, it would have been better for EPA to have modeled

a B3 scenario, in which both prices and production do not change, while control costs

increase. Such a scenario-reflecting the reality ofthe lime market-would better reflect

the real impact ofthe rule on the lime industry.

Page 36