### From: Telander, Jeff <Telander.Jeff@epa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:01 PM To: Frey, Nathan J. Cc: Barnett, Keith; Walton, Tom; VanLare, Paula; Jordan, Scott Subject: Revised Brick/Clay Preamble and RIA

Nathan, Attached are the current “clean” versions of the preamble and reg text and RIA. Also attached are “track changes” documents that compare those files with the versions of the preamble and reg text and RIA that were sent to you on 11
- 17.

Jeff Telander Sect or Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243

- 02) RTP, NC 27711 919
- 541
- 5427 919
- 541
- 5450 (FAX) Overnight mail address: US EPA Mail Code D243

- 02 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709

<< Preamble and Reg Text 11
- 19
- 14.docx >> << Brick
- Clay comparison of 11

- 19 version and version sent to OMB on 11

- 17.docx >> << Brick RIA comparison of 11
- 19 revised version and version sent to OMB on 11

- 17.docx >> << Brick
- RIA
- 11
- 19
- 14 revisedJT.docx >>

### 6560

- 50

- P
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63**  **[EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 0**  **and EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 1**  **; FRL -**  **9913 -**  **58 -**  **OAR ]** 
**RIN 2060**  **- AP69**  **NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and**  **NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing**
**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency.
**ACTION:** Proposed rule.
**SUMMARY:** T he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP ) fo r b rick and s tructural c lay p roducts m anufacturing and NE SHAP for c lay c eramics m anufacturing. T he EPA is proposing that all major sources in these categories meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury , non mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate
matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only) ; health

- based standards for acid gas HAP ; and work practice standards , where applicable
. T h e proposed rule , which has been informed by input from industry and other stakeholders , including small businesses, would protect air quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the C lean A ir A ct (CAA)
.

### Page 2 of 425

**DATES:** Comments . Comments must be received on or before **[ insert**  **date 60**  **days after the date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . A copy of comments on the information collection provisions should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before **[ insert date**  **30 days after the date of**  **pub lication in the Federal Register**  **]**
. Public Hearing
. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing by [ **INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  the EPA will hold a public hearing on [ **INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL** 
**REGISTER** ] from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Park, NC 27711. If the EPA holds a public he aring, the EPA will keep the record of the hearing open for 30 days after completion of the hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information
. **ADDRESSES** : Comments . Submit your comments, identified by Docket
ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on

- line instructions fo r submitting comments.

### Page 3 of 425

• Email : A

- and

- R

- docket@epa.gov
. Include Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing or EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing in the subject line of the message
.

• Fax : (202) 566

- 9744.

• Mail : Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) , Mailcode 2822 1 T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 (for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing) or EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), 1200 P ennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. In addition, plea se mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 72 5 17 th 

### Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand /Courier Delivery : EPA Docket Center , Room 3334, EPA
WJC West Building , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions . Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing or EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received

### Page 4 of 425 will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email . The http://www.regulati ons.gov W eb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.re gulations.gov , your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dock ets
.

### Page 5 of 425

Docket . The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dock ets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not pl aced on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building , Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566

- 1742. Public Hearing
. If requested by **[INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],**  we will hold a public hearing on [ **INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE**
**FEDERAL REGISTER** ], from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Stand ard Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of

### Page 6 of 425

the Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243

- 01), Offi ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: ( 919 ) 541

- 7966; email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov; to request a hearing, register to speak at the hea ring or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will be held. The last day to pre

- register in advance to speak at the hearing will be [INSERT DATE 12 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day o f the hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, we ask that you pre

- register for the hea ring, as we may not be able to arrange such accommodations without advance notice. The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is

### Page 7 of 425 issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Min nesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver ’s licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respon d to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of sc hedule or behind schedule. Again, a hearing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested. A

### Page 8 of 425 hearing needs to be requested by [INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Again, please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of the Sec tor Policies and Programs Division (D243

- 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number: ( 919 ) 541

- 7966; email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a hearing.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** : For question s about the proposed rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products
M anufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing , contact M s . Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243

- 0 4 ) , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; T elephone number : (919) 541

- 2825 ; F ax number : (919) 541

- 5 450 ; E mail address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov
. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
. This preamble includes several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data inventories and risk modeling. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: 3xRDL representative detection level va lues multiplied by

### Page 9 of 425

three ACI activated carbon injection AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM

– 3 model APCD air pollution control device ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BDL below detection lim it BLD bag leak detection BSCP brick and structural clay products CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CAS Chemical Abstract Services CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cl 2 

### chlorine CO carbon monoxide CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter DLA dry limestone adsorber DLL detection level limited DLS /FF dry lime scrubber /fabric filter EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool °F degrees Fahrenheit FF fabric filter FTIR Fourier transform infrared gr / dscf grain s per dry standard cubic foot H AP hazardous air pollutant HCl hydrogen chloride HEM

- 3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1) HF hydrogen fluoride Hg mercury HQ hazard quotient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer ICR information collection request IOM Institute of Medicine IRFA i nitial regulatory flexibility analysis IRIS Integrated Risk Information System K kurtosis statistic lb /hr pound s per hour lb /ton pound s per ton LML lowest measured level

### Page 10 of 425

MACT maximum achievable control technology mg / m 3 

### milligram s per cubic meter MMBtu /yr million British thermal units per year MRL Minim al Risk Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory N ESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/dscm nano gram s per dry standard cubic meter No. number NO 2 

### n itrogen dioxide NOAEL no observable adverse effect level non - Hg non - mercury NO X 

### nitrogen oxides NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act O 2 

### oxygen OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring OMB Office of Management and Budget PIC products of incomplete combustion PLC programmable logic controller PM particulate matter PM 2.5 

### particulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter RDL representative detection level REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis S skewness statistic SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review SBE Standard Brick Equivalent SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SEK standard error of kurtosis SER small entity representative SES standard error of skewness SO 2 

### sulfur dioxide SSM startup, shutdown and malf unction TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin TEQ 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalents TOSHI target organ - specific hazard index tph tons per hour tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

### Page 11 of 425

μg /dscm microgram s per dry standard cubic meter μg / m 3 

### microgram s per cubic meter UPL Upper Prediction Limit VCS voluntary consensus standards VE visible emissions WHO World Health Organization Organization of This Document . The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
**I. General Information**  A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D
. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
**I I. Background Information**  A. What is the s tatutory authority for the proposed rule ? B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and m alfunction ? C
. What is the history of the proposed rule? D . What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the B rick and S tructural C lay P roducts and C lay C eramics Manufacturing source categories?
**I II**  **. Summary of the**  **Proposed Rule**  **for the Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing Source**  **Category** A. What source categor y is affected by the proposed rule ? B. What are the affected sources? C. Does the proposed rule apply to me ? D . What emission limit ation s and work practice standards must I meet ? E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements? F . What are the test ing and initial compliance requirements? G . What are the continuous compliance requi rements? H . What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA? **IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing**  A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule? C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories? D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the

### Page 12 of 425 proposed emission limitati ons for existing and new source s? E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing sources? F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources? G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets? H . How di d the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing sources? I . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? J . How did the EPA determine whether to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? K . How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements ? M
. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements? N . How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? O . How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the proposed rule? P . How does the proposed rule affect permits? Q . What are the alternate approaches the EPA is consider ing ? **V. Summary of the Proposed Rule**  **for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Ca**  **tegory** A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule? B. What are the affected sources? C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? E. What are the startup and shutdown requirement s? F . What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? G . What are the continuous compliance requirements? H . What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?
**VI . Ration**  **ale for the Proposed Rule**  **for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing**  A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? B . How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule? C . How did the EPA consider different subcategories? D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources? E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing sources?

### Page 13 of 425
F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources? G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets? H . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing sources? I . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? J . How did the EPA determine whet her to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? K . How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements ? M
. How did the EPA select th e compliance requirements? N . How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? O . How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the proposed rule? P . How does the proposed rule affect permits?
**VII .**  **Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts**  **of the Proposed Standards** A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts ? B. What are the secondary impacts ? C. What are the economic impacts? D . What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?
**VIII .**  **Public Participation and Request for Comment** 
**I X**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**  A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regul atory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E
. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G
. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I
. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmen tal Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

### Page 14 of 425
**I. General Information**
A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT . We issued the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) manufacturing and the NESHAP for
C lay Ceramics M anufacturing on May 16, 2003
. T he two NESHAP w ere vacated and reman ded by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. T o address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are proposing

new standards for B SCP m anufacturing and c lay c eramics

m anufacturing. 2. Summary of the Major Provisions
BSCP NESHAP
. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for mercury ( Hg ) and non

- mercury (non

- Hg ) HAP metals (or PM surrogate) and a health

- based emission limit for acid gases ( hydrogen fluoride ( HF ) , hydrogen chloride ( HCl ) and chlorine ( Cl 2 

### ) ) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing work practice standards for periodic kilns , for dioxin s /furan s from tunnel kilns and for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns . To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits , the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , continuous

### Page 15 of 425 parameter monitoring and daily visible emissions ( VE ) checks. Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with a fabric filter (FF ) ( e.g. , dry lime injection fabric filter ( DIFF ) , dry lime scrubber/fabric filter ( DLS/FF ) ) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detect i o n ( BLD ) system instead of daily VE checks. Clay Ceramics NESHAP
. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for Hg , PM (surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans and health

- based emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers , MACT emission limits for Hg and PM (surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) for ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryw are glaze spray booths. T he EPA is also proposing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and for periods of startup and shutdown . To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits , the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , continuous parameter monitoring and daily VE checks. Owners/operators whose affected sources are equipped with a FF ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system instead of daily VE checks.

### Page 16 of 425

3
. Costs and Benefits Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) , while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of this proposed action for 40 CFR pa rt 63, subpart
KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP) . See section VII of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits for the BSCP M anufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay
C eramics M anufacturing NESHAP. See section I X.B of thi s preamble for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.
**Table 1 —**  **Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 40 CFR Part 63,**  **Subpart JJJJJ (**  **millions of 2011 dollars)**  **Requirement Capital cost**  **Annual cost Net benefit**  Emission controls $54.9 $18.4 $26 to $99 Emissions testing $0.977 $0.238 Monitoring

-- $0.346

**Table 2 —**  **Summary of the Costs of 40 CFR Part 63,**  **Subpart KKKKK (**  **millions of 2011 dollars)**  **Requirement Capital cost**  **Annual cost** Emission controls $ 0 $ 0 Emissions testing $0.1 02 $ 0. 0 249 Monitoring

-- $ 0.02 0 9

B
. Does this action apply to me? The regulat ed c ategories and entitie s potentially affected by th e proposed standards are shown in Table 3 of this preamble :

### Page 17 of 425

**Table 3 —**  **NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by this Proposed**  **Action**
**Category NAICS**  **code a**  

### Examples of **potentially regulated entities**  Industry.... 327120 Brick, s tructural clay and e xtruded tile manufacturing facilities (BSCP NESHAP) ; and c eramic wall and floor tile manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP)
. 32711 0 Vitreous plumbing fixtures (sanitaryware) manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP). Federal government...
... Not affected
. State/local/tribal government... ... Not affected
.

a 

### North American Industry Classification System

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility , company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by this action, you should examin e the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40
CFR 6 3
. 8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP) . If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provision s)
.

### Page 18 of 425

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the
EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) W eb site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html . Following pub lication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same W eb site
. D
. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email . Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD

- ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD

- ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD

- ROM the speci fic information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public do cket. If you submit a CD

- ROM or disk that does not

### Page 19 of 425
contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD

- ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2 . Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404

- 02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291 (for BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (for Clay Cer amics Manufacturing NESHAP)
. **I I. Background Information** 
A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule ? Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performin g five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as

### Page 20 of 425 stringent as the control level achieved in pra ctice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “beyond

- the

- floor” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account the associated costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts.
B
. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup , shutdown and malfunction (SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA , we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in sections

### Page 21 of 425

I V
. L and V I
. L of this preamble, has proposed alternate standards for some sources during those periods. Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
pr edictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring e quipment. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requir ing emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in C AA section 112 that directs the a gency to consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of” sources “ says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated. ” Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA , 734 F.3d 11 15, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
. While the EPA accounts for

### Page 22 of 425 variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the a gency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as th e type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting section CAA 112 standards. Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associat ed with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these

reasons , the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g. , Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 6 58, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ( “T he EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data

- gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ‘ invest the resources to conduct the perfect study. ’ ” ) See also , Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate

### Page 23 of 425 all upset situations. A fter a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exerc ise of case

- by

- case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation . For example, if an air pollut ion control device with 99

- percent removal goes off

- line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99

- percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations , and the emissions over a 4

- day malfunction period would exceed the

ann ual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than ) levels that are achieved by a well

- performing

non - malf unctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to

### Page 24 of 425
malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. In the event that a source fails to comply wit h the applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including pr eventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “ sudden, infrequent, not reas onably preventable ” and was not instead

“ caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation .” 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction ). If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted , the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is tru e for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and , in partic ular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices

### Page 25 of 425
that will avoid malfunctions
. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. C. What is the history of the proposed rule? Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and
C lay C eramics Manufacturing source categories by November 2000. The a gency initially promulgated standards for these categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003). Those standards were challenged and subsequently vacated by the Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v.
EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standards for these
cate gories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged that claim in a motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to act by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 2007
vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the District Court found that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty to set standards by 2000 and h e ld that Sierra Club’s claims

### Page 26 of 425
could continue
. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a consent decree to settle the litigation and establish proposal and promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for these categories. Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule , the EPA began efforts to collect additional data to support new standards for the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. T he EPA conducted an initial information collection effort in 2008 to update information on the inventory of affected units , hereafter referred to as “the 2008 EPA survey.” The EPA conducted a second information collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional emissions data and information on each facility’s SSM procedures , hereafter referred to as “the 2010 EPA survey . ” The information collected as part of these surveys and not claimed as CBI by respondents is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0290 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. In addition, the dockets A

– 9 9

– 30 and OAR

- 2002

- 0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP
. T he dockets A

- 2000

- 48 , OAR

- 2002

- 0055 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0424 are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics
.

### Page 27 of 425

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the
B rick and S tructural C lay P roducts Manufacturing and C lay
C eramics Manufacturing source categories? The proposed rule protect s air quality and promote s the public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns
. E missions data collected during development of the proposed rule show s that acid gases such as HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### represent the predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay ceramics kilns, accounting for 99.3 percent of the total HAP emissions. These kilns also emit lesser amounts of other HAP compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans, accounting for about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals emitted include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury , nickel and selenium. Exposure to these HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders ( e.g. , irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous syste m and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders ( e.g. , lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI ) and

### Page 28 of 425 four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and nickel).
**I II**  **. Summary of the Proposed Rule**  **for the Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing**  **Source Category**  This section summarizes the requirements for the BSCP
M anufactur ing source category proposed in today’s action. Section I V of this preamble provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.
A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule? Today’s proposed rule for BSCP M anufacturing applies to
BSCP manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP M anufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick, structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay pipe; ro of tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products.
B. What are the affected sources? The affected source s, which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1) a ll tunnel k iln s at a BSCP manufacturing facility ; and ( 2 ) each periodic kiln. For purposes of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , tunnel kilns are defined to include any type of continuous kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns.

### Page 29 of 425

Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust

- fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, including: (1) a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitt ed to the atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to the requirements of today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. The following BSCP process units are not subject to the requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) k ilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products and ( 2 ) dryers
. See section IV.A of this preamble for information on why these sources are not subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule applies to own ers or operat ors of a n affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located withi n a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit ,

### Page 30 of 425 considering controls , 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 t py or more of any combination of HAP.
D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet? 1. Emission Limitations We are proposing a choice of e mission limits for total non

Hg HAP metals for all new and existing tunnel kilns
. The options include a total non

- Hg HAP metals limit ( pounds per hour ( lb/hr ) ) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals ( pounds per ton ( lb/ton ) or grain s per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/dscf ) at 7 percent oxygen ( O 2 

### ) )
. We are also proposing a choice of e mission limits for Hg (lb/ton , lb/hr or microgram s per dry standard cubic meter ( μg/dscm ) at 7 percent
O 2 

### ) for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based on kiln size
. In this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of 10 tons per hour ( tp h ) or great er and a small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of less than 10 tp h
. We are also proposing an emission limit for HCl

- equivalent for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### . The proposed emission limits for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals are presented in Table 4 of this preamble.

### Page 31 of 425

**Table 4 —**  **Proposed Total Non**  **- Mercury HAP Metals and Mercury**  **Emission Limits for Brick and Structural Clay Products Tunnel**  **Kilns**
**Subcategory Acid gases**  **Total non**  **- Hg HAP**  **metals Hg**  Limits for existing sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- -- 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 29 μg/dscm at 7

-

percent O 2 

### for each existing large tunnel kiln at facility Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- -- 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 μg/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 

### for each existing small tunnel kiln at facility All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HCl

equivalent for collection of all existing tunnel kiln s at facility 0.1 6 lb/ton PM OR 0.04 0 gr/dscf PM at 7 percent O 2 

### OR 0.02 3 lb/hr non - Hg HAP metals for each existing

tunnel kiln at facility --

Limits for new sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- -- 2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 13 μg/dscm at 7

-

percent O 2 

### for each new large tunnel kiln at facility Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- -- 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 μg/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 

### for each new small tunnel kiln at facility All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HCl

equivalent for collection of all new tunnel kiln s at facility 0.0 22 lb/ton PM OR 0.00 66 gr/dscf

PM at 7

- percent

O 2 

### OR 0.00 32 lb/hr non

- Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at facility --

### Page 32 of 425

2. Work Practice Standards We are proposing work practice standards for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits
. The work practice standards would require develop ing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln ; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; documentin g the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load ; d eveloping and implementin g maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the freque ncy of inspection and maintenance ; and d eveloping and maint aining records for each periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the periodic kilns. We are also proposing work practice standards for BSCP
tunne l kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits . The work practice standards would require maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable) ; tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion ; keeping records of each burner tune

- up ; and submitting a report for each
tune

- up conducted.

### Page 33 of 425

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements? The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section
II. B of this preamble. S tandards for periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in this section.
W e are proposing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit ( °F ) . In addition, no bricks or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through t he APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F . In addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. W hen the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements describ ed in section III.G of this preamble.
W e are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well
. For startup, no bricks or other product may be introduced

### Page 34 of 425
to the kiln until the kiln exhaust t emperature reaches 400 °F
. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F
. F
. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? We are proposing that owners or operators of all af fected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test would have to be conducted before renewing the facility ’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every five years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , the owner or operator would have to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , Hg and PM (or non - Hg HAP metals). We are proposing that the owner or operator measure HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from St ationary Sources

- Isokinetic Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8;
• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid particulate ( e.g. , HF, HCl or Cl 2 

### dissolved in water drople ts emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, provided the test follow s the analyte spiking procedures of section 1 3 of Method 320, unless the owner or

### Page 35 of 425
operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provis ions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator would calculate the HCl

- equivalent for the kiln using proposed Equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.8445( f )(2) (i) . If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HCl

equivalent for each kiln using proposed Equation 3 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the proposed limitation. If the owner or operator choose s to comply with one of the two PM emission limits, w e are propos ing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3;
• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From Sta tionary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, where the test results would report the weigh t of the PM on the filter as PM filterable; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. If the owner or operator choose s to comply with the non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limit s , the owner or operator would measure non - Hg HAP metals emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other alternat ive method that has been approved by the Administrator

### Page 36 of 425
under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other approved alternative method to measure Hg emissions. The following paragraphs discuss the initi al compliance requirements that we are proposing
. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator would need to install the continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS ) equipment to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operat ing limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator would use the CPMS to establish site

- specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator ensure that lime in t he feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

- flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator would be required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed rate values during the PM/non

- Hg HAP meta ls and HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator would need to submit analyses and supporting

### Page 37 of 425 documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance a nd specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and speci fications for BLD systems.
For a dry limestone adsorber ( DLA ) , we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop

across the DLA during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average pressure drop. Th e average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific pressure drop operating limit. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance
test. The owner or operator also would need to maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or operator would need to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the 1

- week period that precedes the performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator

### Page 38 of 425

wo uld need to document the source and grade of the limestone used during the performance test.
For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test , t he scrubber liquid pH and chemical addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance
tests . For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or o perator would need to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3

- hour block average value. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addit ion rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### tests, the highest of the average values become the site

- specific operating limit.
For an activated carbon inje ction (ACI) system , we are proposing that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit.

### Page 39 of 425

For a source with no APCD installed, we are proposing that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)( 1)(i ). The owner or operator would u se the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of the kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represe nt 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would need to sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent and compare t his value to the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases . If the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent is greater than the proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for wh ich the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that would result in a total f acility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would become the operating limit(s) for process rate.

### Page 40 of 425

G
. What are the continuous compliance requirements? Today’s BSCP manufacturing rule prop oses that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to follow the requirements in the operation, maintenance and monitoring ( OM&M ) plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would need to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The
CPMS would have to colle ct data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS ( including inspections, calibrations and validation checks ) and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator would need to calculate and record the 3

- hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator would need to hav e at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.

### Page 41 of 425

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF / HCl / Cl 2 

### ) health

- based emission limit by maintain ing free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is not flowing freely, according to l oad cell output , carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance
tes t and record the feeder setting once each shift. The proposed rule would provide the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit. For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a
BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged f or more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, the owner or operator would not count any alarm time if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is

### Page 42 of 425

requ ired. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour
. I f corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm , the owner or operator must count as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitor ing VE, we are proposing that the owner or operator perform daily, 15

- minute VE observations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. During the VE observations, the kiln would need to be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete correct ive actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any wee kly test, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.

### Page 43 of 425

For a stand

- alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit
. For a DLA, we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF / HCl / Cl 2 

### ) health

based emission limit by collect ing and record ing data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reduc ing the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established dur ing the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation. A ny period in which the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA would trigger corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also would need to verify that the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA contain an adequate amount of lim estone by performing a daily visual check of the limestone hopper and the storage bin . A daily visual check could include one of the following: (1)

c onducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3)

### Page 44 of 425 installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone. I f the hopper or st orage bin do es not contain adequate limestone , the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also would have to record the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per to n of fired product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. The owner or operator also would need to use the same grade of limestone from the same source as

was u sed during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test and maintain records of the source and type of limestone. Finally, the owner or operator would need to monitor VE, as described in the previous paragraph.
For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance
test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test would demonstrate

### Page 45 of 425 compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour bl ock average for scrubber liquid pH and chemical ( e.g. , lime, caustic) addition rate at or above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test would demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF / HCl / Cl 2 

### ) health

- based emission limit. M aintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance tests would demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously monitor ing the activated carbon flow rate and maintain ing it at or above the oper ating limit established during the Hg performance test.
For sources with no APCD , we are proposing that the owner or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit
. In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent was not at or below the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases , then we are proposing that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to

### Page 46 of 425

3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent to remain at or below the proposed limitation
. H
. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources would be required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are iden tified in proposed Table 8 of 40 CFR part 64, subpart JJJJJ . The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator would be required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual

c ompliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period
. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are

### Page 47 of 425 specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in proposed Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ
. Specifically, w e are proposing that the owner or operator keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.
• Records of performance tests.
• Records relating to APCD maintenance an d documentation of approved routine control device maintenance exemption.
• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.
• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Records of e ach instance in which the owne r or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operating limits ).
• Records of production rates.
• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures.
• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD
. • Current co pies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the periodic kiln work practice standard.
• Records of burner tune

- ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken. We are also proposing that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.
• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source become s subject to this subpar t.
• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days

### Page 48 of 425
before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days follow ing completion of a c ompliance demonstration that includes a performance test.
• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations f or the work practice standards).
• Compliance reports semi

- annually , including a report of the most recent burner tune

- up conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard and a report of each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the cor rective action taken
. • Results of each performance test within 60 days of completing the te s t , submitted to the EPA by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods.
I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA? In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners a nd operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer using
EPA

- provided software. The direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is the EPA’s portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA

- provided software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) , which generates electronic reports of performance tests and evaluations. The ERT

### Page 49 of 425 report package will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA’s public database called W ebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE via the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSub mission ). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found on the ERT W eb site ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ), and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX W eb site ( www.epa.gov/cdx ). The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test . The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listin g of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available on the ERT W eb site
. We believe that the electronic submittal of reports increases the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data avail ability and may ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting can eliminate paper

- based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies and providing data quickly an d

### Page 50 of 425 accurately to the affected sources, air agencies, the EPA and the public. By making data readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for the development of emission factors. The EPA has received feedback from sta keholders asserting that many of the EPA’s emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we also recognize that emissi ons profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emission factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emission factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. Emission factors are used in the development of emissions inventories, and improved emission factors means that the quality of these inventories will be improved more quickly than they would under the current paper reporting requirements. Emissions inventories are used for tracking emission trends and identifying potential sources of emis sions for reduction. For example, the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) uses

### Page 51 of 425 the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in its screening level assessments to characterize the nationwide chronic cancer risk estimates and noncancer hazards from i nhaling air toxics. The NATA is used as a screening tool for air agencies to prioritize pollutants, emission sources and locations of interest for further study to gain a better understanding of risks. Therefore, improving the quality of these inventories is

an on - going goal for the agency and a benefit to the public, air agencies and the regulated community. Additionally, the EPA, the regulated community and the public may benefit from electronic reporting when the EPA conducts its CAA

- required technology and risk

- based reviews. Because we will already have access to these reports, our ability to do comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time. Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA would have performance test data in hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA

- required technology and risk

- based reviews may be needed. This may result in a decrease in the need for industry s taff time to respond to data collection requests. It may also allow the EPA to conduct these required reviews more quickly, as we will not have to include the ICR collection time in the process. While the regulated community may benefit from

### Page 52 of 425

reduced ICRs , the general public benefits from the agency’s ability to conduct these required reviews more quickly. Electronic reporting could minimize submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to prin t paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, thus minimizing the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized b y replacing those records with electronic records of electronically submitted data and reports. There are benefits of information that is submitted in a standardized format. Standardizing the reporting format will require the reporting of specific data ele ments, thereby helping to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate assessment of data quality. Additionally, imbedded quality assurance checks will perform some of the required method calculations, reducing errors in test reports. And beca use the system is entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for

### Page 53 of 425 analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures will increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall qual ity of test data, and lead to more accurate emission factors and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit all users of the data. Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because the performance test data would be readily

available in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the reported data b eing accessible to them through the EPA’s electronic reporting system whenever they want or need access (as long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to access and review information electronically will assist air agencies in more quickly dete rmining compliance with emission standards. This benefits both air agencies and the general public. The general public would also benefit from electronic reporting of emissions data because the data would be available

### Page 54 of 425 for viewing sooner and would be easie r for the public to access. The EPA W eb site that stores the submitted electronic data is easily accessible to the public and provide s a user - friendly interface that any stakeholder could access. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data would save industry, air agencies and the EPA signific ant time, money and effort while also improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations.
**I V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing**
A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the primary sources of HAP emissions are kilns, including tunnel kilns and periodic kilns. The HAP emitted from BSCP kilns include HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , Hg and other non

- Hg HAP metals. At one time, dryers were a potential source of HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### and non - Hg HAP metals emissions, but the design and operation of kilns and dryers has changed such that emissions released from the heating of the raw materia ls and the products of combustion no longer pass from the kiln in to the dryer. In addition, the 2010 EPA survey requested

### Page 55 of 425 that owners/operators of specific d ryers test for dioxins/furans, and none of the tests found detect a ble levels of dioxins/furans. See the technical memorandum “ Determination of
“Non

- Detect” Test Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule ” in D ocket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1. Other process units at BSCP manufacturing facilities ( e.g. , raw material processing and handling) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP. For this reason, the proposed rule covers existing and new kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities which meet the applicability criteria in the rule. BSCP kilns that do not meet the applicability criteria incl ude kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. Nearly all of the acid gas emissions from the firing of BSCP products are released during the initial firing , so kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on
prev iously fired products emit little to no HF , HCl or Cl 2 

### . B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule? For Hg and total non

- Hg HAP metals , t his proposed BSCP manufacturing rule provides owners and operators of regulated

sources with a choice b etween a numerical emission rate limit as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced and a numerical emission limit in units of concentration. The selection of numerical emission rate limits and numerical emission limits as the format for this proposed BSCP

### Page 56 of 425 manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method t hat may not be appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of numerical emission rate limits as mass of pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced ensures that differences in kiln sizes or production rates do not affect the level of emissions control achieved. The PM limit s are proposed as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals
. T he same control techniques that would be used to control PM will control non

- Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific indi vidual HAP metals because all kilns do not emit the same type and amount of HAP metals due to differences in raw materials and fuels used to fire the kilns. However, most kilns generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of
HAP metals . The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the cost of performance testing needed to comply with numerous standards for individual non

- Hg HAP metals. We have used PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals NESHAP for other rules with similar processes ( e.g. , Portland Cement Manufacturing, Lime Manufacturing).

### Page 5 7 of 425 Although we continue to believe that PM is a good surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals and that complying with a PM emission limit rather than non

- Hg HAP metals limits will be less costly for most kilns, we understand that some owners and operators may find that meeting a total non

- Hg HAP metals limit is less costly than meeting a PM limit. To provide that flexibility , we have developed an alternative compliance option of a numerical emission rate limit for total non - Hg HAP metals as a mass of pollutant emitted per hour. The ability to c ompl y with this limit would provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions and would achieve equivalent e mission reductions to the options to limit PM
. For acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### ), this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule includes a health

- based emission limit as a mass of HCl

- equivalent emitted per hour . Further discussion about the development of the health

- based standard for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is provided in section IV. J of this preamble. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule includes work practices for dioxin s /furan s from tunnel kiln s. As described in more detail in section I V. K .2 of this preamble, 83 percent of the dioxin/furan data collected during the ICR process were below the detection level and it is not practicable due to

### Page 58 of 425 technological and economic limitations to apply measurem ent methodology to test for compliance with a numerical limit
. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes work practices for periodic kilns. As described in more detail in section I V. K .1 of this preamble, technological and economic limitations mak e it impracticable to measure compliance with numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns
. C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories? Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories or subc ategories of sources. Through subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar emission sources within a source category if differences in emissions characteristics, processes or opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source
cat egory. Upon initial consideration of the available information on the BSCP manufacturing industry, we determined that separate subcategories for periodic kilns and tunnel kilns were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic kilns are smaller than tunn el kilns (with lower production on an hourly basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total BSCP industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated in batch cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously. Third, periodic kilns are typically operated at higher temperatures than tunnel kilns and products are typically heated

### Page 59 of 425 in the kiln for longer periods than products fired in tunnel kilns, resulting in higher energy requirements. As noted in section IV. K .1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is techn ologically and economically infeasible to test periodic kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in tha t smaller kilns operated periodic ally ( i.e. , periodic kilns) would be expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns
. W e then examined the potential for additional subcategories for tunnel kilns, inclu ding subcategorization based on kiln fuel and kiln size. Based on the available emissions test data, we could not discern differences in emissions based on fuel type. For that reason, we have not subcategorized by fuel type. We request comment, including a dditional data if appropriate, on whether we should subcategorize by fuel type. In particular, we request comment on whether we should create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer). We then considered subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on kiln size. There are several differences between the design, operation and efficiency of larger kilns and smaller kilns. In particular , many small kilns are the older, less efficient kilns in the industry and newer kilns can be co nstructed to be larger and more efficient due to advances in design. Smaller, older

### Page 60 of 425 kilns were constructed with large amounts of heavy refractory brick and are narrow and tall in shape, with high arched ceilings. Larger, newer kilns can be constructed with more efficient refractories and can include features such as fiber linings and insulating brick, resulting in a wider kiln with lower ceilings . In addition, the burners in a small kiln are generally less efficient and are located near the bottom of the kiln, where some of the heat is absorbed by the cars that move the bricks through the kiln rather than by the bricks themselves. In a large kiln, the burners are mo re efficient and are often located at the top of the kiln, where they can fire downward to the product. Combined with the kiln size and shape differences, the difference in burner efficiency and location results in a more even temperature distribution thro ughout the kiln and product in a large kiln than in a small kiln
. To assess whether these design and operation differences have an effect on emissions and provide support for defining size subcategories in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , we conducted a set of statistical analyses on the emissions dataset. In the vacated rule, “small kilns” were defined as kilns with a design capacity less than 10 tph and “large kilns” were defined as kilns with a design capacity of 10 tph or greater. The main goal of the statistical analyses was to determine if these definitions are supported by our current

### Page 61 of 425

dataset. Because we have Cl 2 

### , Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals data for only about 10 percent of the kilns in the industry, we conducted the series analyses based on the HF , HCl and PM datasets , which are available for a much larger percentage of the kilns in the industry, providing more representative kiln datasets for the analyses
. We found that the median of the emissions data from kilns in the large kiln dataset was stat istically different than the median of the emissions data from kilns in the small kiln dataset for all three pollutants. A lso , based on a logistic model , we found high association between emissions and the hypothesized design capacity classification. Final ly, we conducted a cluster analysis and considered all three pollutants together to investigate whether the combined dataset supported changing the definitions of small and large kilns. This cluster analysis supported the subcategory definitions from the v acated rule. (For more information on the statistical analyses, see

“ Analysis of Potential Subcategories for BSCP Tunnel Kilns ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1 .) Based on the above information and analyses, we determined that differences in design an d emissions exist between large (10 tph or greater) and small (less than 10 tph) kilns. Therefore, we are proposing to exercise our discretion to subcategorize based on kiln size for these kilns’ emissions of Hg
. As

### Page 62 of 425
discussed in section IV.D of this preamble , we are not proposing to exercise our discretion to subcategorize for other pollutants.
D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources? All standards established pursua nt to CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determined is achievable for each category. For existing sources, MACT cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcateg ories with 30 or more sources or the best performing five sources for subcategories with less than 30 sources. This requirement constitutes the MACT floor for existing sources. The CAA specifies that MACT for new sources shall not be less stringent than th e emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. This minimum level of stringency is the MACT floor for new units.
T he EPA may not consider costs or other impacts in determining the MACT floor. However, t he EPA must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy

### Page 63 of 425 requirements in connection with any standards that are more stringent than the MACT floor (beyond

- the

- floor controls). The remainder of this section describes the developmen t of the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) . As noted in section IV. J of this preamble, health

- based emissions standards are being proposed for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### under the provis ions of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared

a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants
. 1. Mercury In our MACT floor analysis for Hg, we separated the sources into large kiln and small kiln subcategories, as described in section I V.C of this preamble
. For each subcategory, we ranked the sources based on the data in terms of lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble) and identified the best performing 12 percent of sources. O nce we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton for each subcategory as described in section IV.E of this preamble
. W e also calculated the MACT floor in lb/hr and concentration units (μg/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 

### ) for each subcategory, based on the concent ration emissions data for the same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. This is further discussed in section IV. E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable

### Page 64 of 425 Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Bri ck and Structural Clay Products ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. 2. Total N on - Hg HAP Metals We developed MACT floor s for PM as a surrogate for total

non - Hg HAP metals. T he available PM data show that kilns controlled with a FF

- based APCD ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) as a group are better performers than kilns without FF

- based controls. When we divided the kilns into two groups, one group consisting of kilns with a FF

- based APCD and the other group consisting of uncontrolled kilns and kilns with a diffe rent type of APCD, we found that the test data for kilns with FF

- based APCD showed they were consistently good performers, while the test data for kilns without a FF

- based APCD varied widely. The worst performing kiln with a FF

- based APCD performs better t han the average kiln in the group without a FF

- based APCD. The best performing 75 percent of the kilns with a FF

- based APCD showed better performance than 80 percent of the kilns without a FF

based APCD. We also conducted a t

- test on the averages of the
tw o groups and we found that the average of the test data for kilns with FF

- based APCD was statistically different from the average of the test data for kilns w ithout a FF

- based APCD (with 99

- percent confidence). See the technical memorandum “ Analysis of Pot ential Subcategories in the BSCP Source Category ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.

### Page 65 of 425 One consequence of the wide variability in emissions from kilns without a FF

- based APCD is that there are a few uncontrolled kilns and kilns controlled with DLA with l ower lb/ton emissions than some of the kilns controlled with a FF

based APCD. We understand that that the emissions from kilns with FF

- based APCD will be consistently low over time , based on the design of these APCD and years of experience with these devic es. On the other hand, we do not have multiple tests over time that would enable us to say the same for kilns that have a different type of APCD ( e.g. , DLA) or are uncontrolled. Thus, we are requesting information and analysis as to whether the data showin g low emissions from some kilns without a FF

- based APCD are reliable. 1 

### As of January 1, 2014, there were 225 operating BSCP tunnel kilns in the industry (including kilns at major sources and synthetic area sources); the top 12 percent of the kilns in the i ndustry would be represented by the 27 best performing kilns. Therefore, we ranked the kilns with a FF

- based APCD in terms of lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble ) and identified the 27 best performing sources from that group. Once

1 

### Further, as discussed in section IV.P.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also considering setting emission limits for PM and total non

- Hg HAP metals based on the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size subcategories. The reliability of t he data showing low emissions from some kilns without a FF

- based APCD is a key factor in the EPA’s determination of which approach is appropriate.

### Page 66 of 425

we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton as described in section IV.E of this preamble. W e also calculated the MACT floor in

co ncentration units (gr/dscf at 7

- percent O 2 

### ), based on the concentration emissio ns data for the same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. As a nother alternative, we calculated an equivalent lb/hr total non

- Hg HAP metals limit using the average non

- Hg HAP metals content of the PM emissions and the av erage proce ss rates of the best performing kilns. This limit would provide additional compliance flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions. The alternatives are further discussed in section IV.E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1.
E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing
sources? The EPA must con sider available emissions information to determine the MACT floors. The EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions contro l that has been achieved by the best perfor ming sources under variable conditions. The United States Court of Appeals for the District

### Page 67 of 425
of Columbia Circuit has recognized that the EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emission reduction achieved by best performing sources and in s etting MACT floors. See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA , 370 F.3d 1232, 1241

– 42 (DC Cir. 2004) (holding EPA may consider emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best performing sources and may set the floor at level that best performing source can expect to meet “every day and under all operating conditions”). As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble , the EPA established the MACT floors for PM (as a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals ) for BSCP kilns based on sources represent ing 12 percent of the number of sources in the category. For Hg emitted from each of the kiln subcategories, the EPA established the MACT floors based on sources representing 12 percent of the sources for which we had emissions information. The MACT floor limitations for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals ) were calculated based on the performance of the best performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s average emissi on value from lowest to highest. Once the best performing sources in the MACT floor pools were identified, t he MACT floors were calculated using an Upper Prediction Limit (UPL). The UPL takes into consideration the

### Page 68 of 425 average performance of the unit s in the MACT floor pool and the varia bility of the test runs during the testing conditions. For more information regarding the general use of the UPL and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see the memorandum

“ Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for C alculating MACT Floors” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1. The UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean of a specified number of future observations ( e.g. , 3

- run average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the results of an independent sample from the same population. A prediction interval for a future observation or an average of future observations, is an interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average of some other pre

- specified number of) randomly selected observation(s) from a population. Given this definition, the UPL represents the value which we can expect the mean of three future observations (3

- run average) to fall below, based upon the results of an independent sample from the same population. In other words, if we were to randomly select a future test condition fr om any of these sources ( i.e. , average of three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall at or below the UPL value. There are different UPL equations depending on the distribution of the data ( e.g. , normal, lognormal,

### Page 69 of 425
skewed/ unknown)
. We first determined the distribution of each MACT floor pool ’s data to determine the appropriate UPL equation

us ing s tatistical tests of the kurtosis (K) , standard error of kurtosis (SEK) , skewness (S) and standard error of skewness (SES) . The sk ewness statistic (S) characterizes the degree of asymmetry of a given data set . According to the skewness hypothesis test, if S is less than two times the SES, the data distribution can be considered to be normal
. The kurtosis statistic (K) characterizes th e degree of peakedness or flatness of a given data distribution in comparison to a normal distribution. According to the kurtosis hypothesis test, if K is less than two times the SEK, the data distribution can be considered to be normal. The skewness and k urtosis hypothesis tests were applied to both the reported test values and the log

transformed values of the reported test values to determine the distribution of each dataset
. A UPL was then calculated for each MACT floor pool with the UPL equation corres ponding to the dataset’s distribution ( e.g. , normal, lognormal, skewed/unknown)
. A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found in the technical memo randum “ Maximum Achievable Control

### Page 70 of 425
Technology (MACT) F loor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component of data variability. Of particular concern are those data that are reported near or below a test method ’s pollutant detection capability. There is a concern that a floor emissions limit calculated using values at or near the method detection limit may not account adequately for data measurement variability
. The expected measurement imprecision for an emissi ons value occurring at or near the detection limit is about 40 to 50 percent. Relative p ollutant measurement imprecision decreases to

a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level about 3 times the method detection limit
. 2 

### One approach that we believe could be applied to account for measurement variability would require defining a detection limit that is representative of the data used in establishing the floor emissions limitations and also minimizes the influence of an outlier test

- specific method detection limit value. The EPA has developed a list of representative detection levels (RDL) developed from available pollutant specific method detection levels. 3 

### These RDL values are then multiplied by three

2 

### American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precisi on of Manual Stack Emission Measurements , CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001. 3 

### “ Data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing

### Page 71 of 425

to decrease measurement imprecision to around 10 to 15 percent (as noted in the previous paragraph), resulting in values referred to as “3xRDL” values. The appropriate 3xRDL value was compare d to the calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory . If the 3xRDL value

w as less than the calculated UPL value , we conclude d that measurement variability is adequately addressed and we used the calculated UPL value as the MACT floor emissions limit. If, on the other hand, the 3xRDL value w as greater than the calculated UPL value , we conclude d that the calculated UPL value does not account entirely for measurement variability. We then use d the 3xRDL value in place of the calculated UPL value to ensure that measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability analysis for all existing MACT floors that had below detection limit (BDL) or detection level limited (DLL) run data present in the best performing dataset s (see the technical memo randum

“ Maximum Achievable Con trol Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291 ). As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in setting floors, not only because variability is an element of various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits .” Memorandum from Peter Westlin, SPPD, MPG and Raymond Merrill, AQAD, MTG, to SPPD management and MACT rule writers. December 13, 2011.

### Page 72 of 425
performance, but be cause it is reasonable to assess best performance over time. For example, we know that the HAP emission data from the best performing units are, for the most part, short

- term averages and that the actual HAP emissions from those sources will vary over time . If we do not account for this variability, we would expect that even the units that perform better than the floor on average could potentially exceed the floor emission levels a part of the time, which would mean that variability was not properly taken i nto account. This variability may include the day

- to

- day variability in the total HAP input to each unit; variability of the sampling and analysis methods; and variability resulting from site

- to

- site differences for the best performing units. The EPA’s con sideration of variability accounted for that variability exhibited by the data representing multiple units and multiple data values for a given unit (where available). We calculated the MACT floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earli er from the average performance of the best performing units and the variability of the best performing units. We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the emission limits selected as the MACT floors adequately represent the level of emissions actu ally achieved by the average of the units in the top 12 percent, considering operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from

### Page 73 of 425 units representative of the top 12 percent and the variability analysis are reasonably des igned to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the best performing 12 percent of units in a given subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor method ology is presented in the technical memo randum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. Table 5 of this preamble presents the average emission level of the best performing sources and the existing source MACT floo r. For this source category, all t he existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL.
**Table 5**  **— Summary of MACT Floor Results for**  **Brick and Structural Clay Products**  **Existing Sources a**  

### Subcategory **Parameter Hg**  **b** 

### PM **b,c** 

### Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) Avg. of best performing sources 1.6 E

- 05 lb/ton 1.7 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 1 4 μg/dscm --

MACT floor 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton 2.7 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 29 μg/dscm --

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) Avg. of best performing sources 1.8 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0010 lb/ hr 62 μg/dscm --

MACT floor 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0011 lb/ hr 70 μg/dscm --

All kilns Avg. of best performing sources -- 0.04 1 lb/ton 0.011 gr/dscf MACT floor

-- 0.1 6 lb/ton 0.04 0 gr/dscf

a 

### For this source category, all the existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL. b 

### Concentration units are at 7

- percent O 2 

### .

### Page 74 of 425

c 

### PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals.



### F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources? The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for new sources is somewhat different from the approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for existing sources because the statutory standard is different . Although the MACT floors for existing units are intended to reflect the performance achieved by the average of the best performing 12 perce nt of sources, the MACT floors for new units are meant to reflect the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. Thus, for existing units, we are concerned about estimating the central tendency of a set of multiple units , whereas for new units, we are concerned about estimating the level of control that is representative of that achieved by a single best performing source. As with the analysis for existing sources, the new source analysis must account for variabilit y. Similar to the MACT floor process used for existing units, the approach we used for determining the MACT floor for new units was based on available emissions test data. Specifically , we calculated the new source MACT floor for a subcategory of sources b y ranking each unit’s average emission value within the subcategory from lowest to highest to identify the best performing similar source. The new source MACT floor limits for

### Page 75 of 425
Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals ) were calculated based on the performance of the best performing source for each pollutant in each of the subcategories. The MACT floor limits for new sources were calculated using the same UPL formula as was used for existing sources , except the data used w ere from the best perfor ming source rather than the best performing 12 percent of sources . As previously discussed, we accounted for variability of the best performing source in setting floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but because it is reasonabl e to assess best performance over time. We calculated the new source MACT floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier from the average performance of the best performing similar source, Student’s t

- factor and the total variability o f the best performing source. This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as the MACT floor for new sources adequately represents the average level of control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, considering ord inary operational variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the technical memo randum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.

### Page 76 of 425

Table 6 of this preamble presents , for each subcategory and pollutant , the average emission level of the best performing similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise no ted.
**Table 6**  **— Summary of MACT Floor Results for**  **Brick and Structural Clay Products**  **New Sources a**  

### Subcategory **Parameter Hg**  **b** 

### PM **b,c** 

### Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) Avg. of top performer 1.5 E

- 05 lb/ton 1.8 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 10 μg/dscm --

MACT floor 2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton 2.4 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 13 μg/dscm --

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) Avg. of top performer 1.8 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0010 lb/ hr 62 μg/ dscm --

MACT floor 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0011 lb/ hr 70 μg/dscm --

All kilns Avg. of top performer

-- 0.00 60 lb/ton 0.002 0 gr/dscf MACT floor

-- 0.0 22 lb/ton d 

### 0.00 66 gr/dscf d

a 

### The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b 

### Concentration units are at 7 percent O 2 

### . c 

### PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals. d 

### The MACT floor is based on the 3xRDL value
.



### G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets?
I n a recent United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA , which involved challenges to EPA’s MACT standards for sewage sludge incinerators, questions were raised

### Page 77 of 425 regarding the application of the UPL to limited datasets. We have since addressed these questions, as explained in detail in the memorandum titled , “Approach for Applying the Upp er Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets” ( hereafter referred to as the “ Limited Dataset Memo ” ), which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. A limited dataset is defined as having less than seven data points. In calculating MACT floor limits based on limited datasets, we considered additional factors as described in the Limited Dataset Memo. W e seek comments on the approach described in the Limited Dataset Memo and whether there are other approaches we should consider for such datasets. We als o seek comments on the application of this approach for the derivation of MACT limits based on limited datasets in this proposal, which are described in the Limited Dataset Memo. For the BSCP manufacturing source category, we have limited datasets for the following pollutants and subcategories: Hg for existing and new small tunnel kilns; PM for new tunnel kilns; and Hg for new large tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.

### Page 78 of 425

H
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing
sources? As discussed in sections II.A and IV.D of this preamble, the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements that are more stringent than the MACT floor ( i.e. , beyond

- the

floor options ). When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account the associated costs, energy and non

- air quality health and environmental i mpacts. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each subcategory, we considered regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control ( e.g. , the performance of technologies that could result in lower emissions) for the differe nt subcategories. We considered requiring all existing sources to meet the new source MACT floors for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals) developed as described in section IV.F of this preamble. We analyzed the beyond

- the

- floor options f or Hg and total non

- Hg HAP metals separately for existing sources . Our analyses are documented in the technical memorandum , “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP , ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291. The beyond

- the

- floor option for total non

- Hg HAP metals is estimated to achieve additional non - Hg HAP metals reductions of

### Page 79 of 425

2. 86 tpy and cost an additional $2 2.8 million per year (2011 dollars) , for a cost effectiveness of $ 7 , 96 0,000 per ton of total additi onal non - Hg HAP metals removed. The beyond

- the

- floor option for Hg is estimated to achieve additional Hg reductions of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds per year ) and cost an additional $ 9.2 5 million per year (2011 dollars) , for a cost effectiveness of $ 148,000 ,000 per ton of total additional Hg removed ($74,000 per pound of additional Hg removed)
. We have concluded that the incremental costs of additional control beyond the MACT floor emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of emission reduction ach ieved for either the Hg or total non

- Hg HAP metals beyond

- the

- floor options
. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond

- the

- floor limits for Hg or total non

- Hg HAP metals
. I
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? The MACT floor level of co ntrol for new tunnel kilns for each pollutant was based on the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source within each of the subcategories. A new kiln would likely need both a FF and ACI system for control of non - Hg HAP metals and Hg to meet the new source MACT floors. When we establish a beyond

the

- floor standard, we typically identify control techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified

### Page 80 of 425 that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new source floors for the subcategories. Therefore , the EPA is not proposing a beyond

- the

- floor limit for new sources in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. J
. How did the EPA determine wheth er to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? In developing the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , we considered whether it was appropriate to establish health

- based emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### . As a general matter, CAA section 112(d) requires MACT standards at least as stringent as the MACT floor to be set for all HAP emitted from major sources. However, CAA section 112(d)(4) provides that for HAP with established health thresholds, the EPA has the discretionary authority to consider such health thresholds when establishing emission standards under CAA section 112(d). This provision is intended to allow the EPA to establish emission standards other than technology

based MACT standards, in cases where an alternative emission standard will still ensure that the health threshold will not be exceeded, with an ample margin of safety. This section discusses the prerequisite for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard, the factors the EPA consid ered in exercising its discretion to
set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set the level of the proposed standard.

### Page 81 of 425

1. What are the prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? The prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard are that the pollutant must have a health threshold and not be carcinogenic. 4 

### Whether a pollutant has a health threshold is based on certain factors, including evidence and classification of ca rcinogenic risk and evidence of noncarcinogenic effects: 5



### • The EPA “presumptively concludes” that known, probable and possible carcinogens (Group A, B and C pollutants) “should not be categorized as threshold pollutants.”
• Pollutants for which there is not e nough evidence to make a conclusion on carcinogenicity (Group D pollutants) will be evaluated on a case

- by

- case basis.
• Pollutants classified as non

- carcinogens (Group E pollutants) are “presumptively considered” to be threshold pollutants. 6 

### Health threshol d standards may not be set for pollutants that are carcinogenic. 7

4 

### See Portland C ement NESHAP F inal R ule , 75 FR 54970, 54985 (col. 2

- 3) ( September 9, 2010) (“In order to exercise this di scretion [to set health threshold standards under 112(d)(4)], EPA must first conclude that the HAP at issue has an established health threshold
. . . ”). 5 

### See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed R ule , 63 FR 18754, 18766/1

- 18767 /1 (April 15, 1998)
. 6 

### The current weight

- of

- evidence under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessments, which replaced the 1986 cancer guidelines, recommends the following cancer hazard descriptors: “Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Likely to Be Carc inogenic to Humans,” “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,” “Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential,” and “Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans” (which are considered equivalent to the 1986 groups A,B,C,D and E respectively). 7 

### See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed R ule , 63 FR 18754, 18765/3 ( “ The EPA presumptively applies section 112(d)(4) only to HAP’s that are not carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that carcinogens be con sidered n onthreshold pollutants” )
.

### Page 82 of 425 The EPA has exercised its discretionary authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) in a handful of prior actions setting emissions standards for other major source categories, including the emiss ions standards issued in 2004 for commercial and industrial boilers and process heaters, which were vacated on other grounds by the United S tates Court of Appeals for the
D istrict of Columbia Circuit. In the proposals for both the Pulp and Paper Chemical R ecovery Combustion Sources NESHAP, 63 FR at 18765 (April 15, 1998) and Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, 67 FR at 78054 (December 20, 2002), the EPA invoked CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility. In those proposed actions, the EPA concluded that HCl had an established health threshold (in those cases it was interpreted as the reference concentration for chronic effects or RfC) and was not classified as a human carcinogen. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk, the availability of information on noncarcinogenic effects and the limited potential health risk associated with the discrete units being regulated, the EPA concluded that it was within the EPA’s discretion to set an emissions standard under CAA sect ion 112(d)(4) for HCl under the circumstances of those actions.
In more recent actions, the EPA noted that HCl was a threshold pollutant, but decided not to propose a health

- based emission standard for HCl emissions under CAA section 112(d)(4)

### Page 83 of 425

for Portland Cement facilities (74 FR at 21154; May 6, 2009) or for Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR at 32032; June 4, 2010) for other reasons . To date, the EPA has not implemented a NESHAP that applied the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4) to HF or Cl 2 

### . 8 

### Since any emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) must consider the established health threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rulemaking the EPA has considered the adverse health effects of the HAP acid g ases, HCl, Cl 2 

### and HF. The standard approach for determining potential hazards of a pollutant has been to use a health benchmark below which effects are not expected to occur. Described below are the health effects and benchmarks for HCl, Cl 2 

### and HF and th e rationale for their designation as threshold pollutants. It is important to note that if exposure levels as proposed by the emissions limits in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rulemaking are achieved, the adverse health effects described below will not be of concern for emissions from these source categories. Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary

8 

### The EPA has not classified HF or Cl 2 

### gas with respect to carcinogenicity. However, at this time the a gency is not aware of any data that would suggest either of these HAP are carcinogens.

### Page 84 of 425
edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the reproductive or de velopmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. The EPA conducted a toxicity assessmen t of chronic inhalation exposure to HCl and has established a n RfC of 20 microgram s per cubic
meter ( μ g/m 3 

### )
. 9 

### An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups 10 

### ) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The EPA RfC for HCl was based on respiratory toxicity observed in animals
. An uncertainty factor of 300 was applied to th e lowest adverse effect level noted in animals. This assessment did not

9 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
. Hydrogen chloride (CASRN 7647

- 01

- 0) . 1995. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm . Accessed on April 11, 2014. 10 

### “ Sensitive subgroups ” may refer to particular life stages, such as children or the elderly or to those with particular medical conditions, such as asthmatics.

### Page 85 of 425
take into account effects associated with acute exposure . 11 

### The EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity. With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we know the followin g:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.
• Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. The one occupational study of which we are aware found no evidence of carcinogenicity
. • There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl
. 12 

### Based on this information , the a gency believes it is reasonable to classify HCl as a Group D pollutant. 13 

### Based on the negative carcinogenicity d ata and on the EPA’s knowledge of how HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as discussed above, the a gency considers HCl to be a threshold pollutant. The effects of acute exposure to humans and animals to Cl 2 

### have been well characterized. Similar to HCl, Cl 2 

### is a well

- known sensory irritant (capable of eliciting sensory irritation) and the most sensitive target for toxicity in humans and animals is

11 

### California EPA considered acute toxicity and established a 1

- hour reference exposure level (REL) of 2.1 mg/m 3 

### . An REL is the c oncentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety. 12 

### See California Office o f Health Hazard Assessment. Acute Toxicity Summary for Hydrogen Chloride
. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112 , EPA, 2008. 13 

### See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review Draft ; EPA

– 600/8

– 87/041A, August 1994.

### Page 86 of 425 the respiratory system. Acute exposures to low levels of Cl 2 

### ( approximately 3 to 40 milligram s per cubic meter ( mg/m 3 

### ) ) have been shown to cause nose, eyes and throat irritation in humans. Acute exposure to high levels (above 40 mg/m 3 

### ) of Cl 2 

### in humans can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and pulmona ry edema. Chronic (long

- term) exposure to Cl 2 

### gas in workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have reported decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation,

non - neoplastic n asal lesions and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia from chronic inhalation exposure to Cl 2 

### . There is no evidence that Cl 2 

### causes reproductive or developmental effects in animals or humans. A few studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find any evidence that Cl 2 

### is carcinogenic. The EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl 2 

### gas as to its carcinogenicity. The human health value for Cl 2 

### is an Agency fo r Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR ) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) of 0.00015 μg/m 3



### . 14 

### The MRL is defined as an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a

14 

### Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36
.

### Page 87 of 425 specified duration of exposure. 15 

### The MRL was based on respiratory toxicity (nasal lesions) obser ved in a chronic inhalation exposure (1 year) in monkeys. An uncertainty factor of 30 was applied to the MRL to account for uncertainties in extrapolating results from animal to humans and to account for human variability. Since the effects of acute exposu re of humans and animals to Cl 2 

### have been well characterized, t he ATSDR toxicity profile for Cl 2 

### also included acute MRL. With respect to the potential health effects of Cl 2 

### , we know the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the MRL is not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.
• The acute effects of Cl 2 

### have been well characterized in humans.
• Studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find any evidence that Cl 2 

### is carcinogenic. Based on the negative carcinogenicity data a nd on the EPA’s knowledge of how Cl 2 

### reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as discussed above, the a gency presumptively considers Cl 2 

### to be a threshold pollutant. There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing the health e ffects of acute exposure to HF
. 16 

### Hydrogen

15 

### Inhalation MRLs are used in noncancer assessment s when IRIS RfCs are not available because their concept, definition and derivation are philosophically consistent (though not identical) with the basis for EPA’s RfCs ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf )
. 16 

### California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen Fluoride. 2003. Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270
.

### Page 88 of 425 fluoride is a respiratory tract irritant capable of causing severe tissue damage in the respiratory system. Acute (short

term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory effects in humans, inclu ding severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Severe ocular irritation and dermal burns may occur following eye or skin exposure in humans. Because the toxic effects of HF are, to a large extent, based on the fluoride ion rather than the hydrogen ion, it is noteworthy to mention that the major health effect of chronic inhalation exposure to high levels of fluoride is skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accum ulates in the bone progressively over many years and can cause a variety of symptoms including stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe

cases , the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify , resulting in muscle impairment and pain. Chronic inha lation exposure to HF (with particulate fluorides) in the aluminum industry has been associated with increased risk of asthma. Chronic oral exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for th e treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause dental and bone fluorosis. Although the existing toxicological database on fluoride does not provide strong evidence for the consideration of fluoride as an essential element, sev eral organizations consider fluoride an

### Page 89 of 425 important dietary element for humans. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has derived adequate intake values ranging from 0.01 to 4 milligrams per day to reduce the occurrence of dental caries
. 17


### The World Health Organiza tion (WHO) considers fluoride to be “essential” because it considered “resistance to dental caries to be a physiologically important function
. ” 18 

### With regard to HF carcinogenic potential , the ATSDR Public Health Statement document states that “carcinogenici ty via inhalation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature
. ” The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity. The chronic inhalation noncancer human health value the EPA uses for HF is the REL of 0.014 mg/m 3 

### derived by California EPA (CalEPA). 19 

### CalEPA defines the REL as a concentration level at (or below) which no adverse health effects are anticipated for specific exposure durations, a concept that is substantially similar to EPA's non

- cancer d ose - response assessment perspective and we , therefore , use it as an alternate value in the absence

17 

### IOM. 1997. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin Dand fluoride. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. www4.nationalacademies.org/iom/iomhome.nsf
. 18 

### WHO. 2002. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Environmental Health Criteria N umber 227. http://www.inchem.org/pages/ehc.html
. 19 

### California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen Fluoride. 2003. Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270
.

### Page 90 of 425

of an IRIS RfC. 20 

### REL are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety. The REL was based on minimal changes in bone density (skeletal fluorosis) in the workplace by Derryberry et al. 21


### Cal EPA states that major strengths of the key study on which the chronic R EL is based is the observation of health effects in a large group of workers exposed over many years and the identification of no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). The primary uncertainty in the study is th e lack of comprehensive health effects exam ination. Another source of concern is the potential for greater susceptibility of children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone growth at early lifestages. This effect applies with particular importance to children’s teeth since it has been established that excessive exposure to fluoride during tooth development in infancy and childhood causes dental fluorosis. To account for uncertainties, the CalEPA REL included a factor of 10 for intraspecies differences (which also accounts fo r variation in kinetics between children and adults). In addition, the chronic

20 

### The California Office of Envir onmental Health Hazard Assessment has developed dose

- response assessments for many substances, based both on carcinogenicity and health effects other than cancer. The process for developing these assessments is similar to that used by the EPA to develop IR IS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. The EPA may use CalEPA values in the absence of an IRIS value. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf
. 21 

### Derryberry OM, Bartholomew MD, Fleming RBL. 1963. “Fl uoride exposure and worker health.” Arch Environ Health 6:503

- 514.

### Page 91 of 425
inhalation REL is lower than the oral chronic REL and the California Public Health Guidance for fluoride in drinking water, which are based on lifetime exposure and protective o f infants and children. CalEPA also considered the acute toxicity of HF and established a 1

- hour REL of 0.24 mg/m 3 

### based on mild eye and respiratory irritation. With respect to the potential health effects of HF, we know the following:

• Chronic exposure at or below the REL is not expected to cause adverse effects.
• There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic potential of HF. With regard to the carcinogenic potential evidence available, the ATSDR Public Health Statement document on HF states that “ carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature
. ” 22



### • There is significant evidence on the health effects of acute exposure to HF allowing for the derivation of an acute heal th benchmark. Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how HF reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as discussed above, the a gency considers HF to be a threshold pollutant.

22 

### Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36
.

### Page 92 of 425

2. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?
T he EPA may exercise its discretionary authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) only with respect to pollutants with a health threshold. Where there is an established t hreshold, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it to weigh additional factors, beyond any established health threshold, in making a judgment whether to set a standard for a specific pollutant based on the threshold or instead follow the tradit ional path of developing a MACT standard after determining a MACT floor. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion for a threshold pollutant for a given source category, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it to take into account factors such as the following:

• The availability of data to set the health

- based standard;
• Co

- benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard , such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutant s;
• T he potential impacts on ecosystems of rel eases of the pollutant ; and
• T he potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other source categories, where the concentration of the thres hold pollutant emitted from the given source category is below the threshold
. If the EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a standard based on a health threshold, the a gency must develop emission standards that will ensure the public will not be

### Page 93 of 425 exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP emitted from the source category in question in excess of the health threshold, with an ample margin of safety
.
a. Availability of Data to Determine a Standard In determining whether to set a health

- based standard, t he EPA considered whether sufficient data for a particular industry are available to determine such a standard. In previous rules, the EPA declined to set a health

- based standard, based in part on the unavailability of data to determine a standard. 23 

### Howeve r, for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , because of the relatively small number of facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility

- specific information, including tunnel kiln locations and ope rating characteristics and stack parameters , available for all BSCP facilities to assess the feasibility of health

based standards in this rule. Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling necessary to establish a health

based emission limit for acid gases. 24 

### Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough information to determine the

23 

### See Boiler MA CT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010) (“[W]e have concluded that we do not have sufficient information at this time to establish what the health

- based emission standards would be for HCl or the other acid gases
. ”)
. 24 

### For more information, s ee the technical memorandum , “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category , ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291.

### Page 94 of 425

health

- based emission standards for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### for the BSCP manufacturing industry. As discussed in further detail below, these limi ts have been developed to ensure that exposure is below the health threshold for each facility and also ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health

concerns. 25


### b. Co

- benefits We also considered whether setting technology

- based MACT standards for HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### from BSCP plants would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ) . Although MACT standards may directly address only HAP, not criteria pollutants, Congress did recognize, in the legi slative history to CAA section 112(d)(4), that MACT standards would have the collateral benefit of controlling criteria pollutants as well and viewed this as an important benefit of the air toxics program. 26 

### Therefore, even where the EPA concludes a HAP has a health threshold, the a gency may consider such co - benefits as a factor in determining whether to exercise its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). The additional nationwide reductions of SO 2 

### that would be

25 

### See Portland Cement NESHAP Fina l Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (Sept ember 9, 2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short

- term emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic health

- based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health concerns .”)
. 26 

### See S. Rep. No. 101

– 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. a t 172
.

### Page 95 of 425
attributable to BSCP MACT standards for acid gases are estimated to be only 4,300 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the proposed BSCP standards. This reduction is substantially lower than the co

- benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a health

based limit , 27 

### and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit
.
c. Ecosystem Impacts In addition to potential health impacts, the EPA has evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when

cons idering whether to exercise discretion under CAA section

27 

### See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970 ( September 9, 2010)

– Co

- benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule . 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. The re, EPA declined to set a health

based standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO 2 

### and other HAP gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO 2 

### alone attr ibutable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons per year” and discussing both direct SO 2 

### effects and effects of SO 2 

### as a precursor to PM 2.5 

### ) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl 2 

### ), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydroge n fluoride (HF))] are also controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when considering a health

- based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT Final Rule , 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this issue and continues to believe that the co

- benefits are significant and provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate to exercise he r discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010)

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 340,000 tons per year of SO 2 

### and unspecified redu ctions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and Hg. See also MATS Proposed Rule , 76 FR 24976, 25051/1

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO 2 

### and un specified reductions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and Hg.

### Page 96 of 425
112(d)(4). 28 

### The agency applied the environmental risk screen methodology that it uses in the Risk and Technology Program under section 112 of the CAA to evaluate the potential for chronic exposure to acid gases emitted by BSCP facilities to cause phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants. The environmental screen uses air concentrations from the
HEM

- 3 model used in the human health exposure and risk analysis. We take these concentrations and de rive an area

- weighted average offsite annual ambient air concentration for each pollutant. The

area - weighted average concentrations are compared directly to the appropriate ecological benchmarks for a given pollutant by dividing the area

- weighted average c oncentration by the appropriate ecological benchmark. The result is called a hazard quotient (HQ). An HQ greater than 1 indicated that the area

weighted average concentration exceeded the ecological benchmark. For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the acid gases HCl and HF around each BSCP facility. Although Cl 2 

### may also be emitted from BSCP facilities, chlorine gas is so reactive that it is not expected to remain in the environment very long after it is released. Chlorine immediately reacts with both organic and inorganic materials that it comes into contact

28 

### See Portland C ement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54986/3 ( September 9, 2010).

### Page 97 of 425
with . Chlorine undergoes direct photolysis in the air and its half

- life in the troposphere is on the order of several minutes. Therefore, it was not considered in the environmental risk screening for the BSCP Manufacturing source category. For HCl, the environ mental risk screen indicated that the

area - weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In add ition, there was only one facility with a modeled concentration of HCl at an offsite receptor location that exceeded the ecological benchmark and that was at a single receptor. For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the

area - weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks
. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF a t offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was less than one percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects.

### Page 98 of 425

d. Cumulative Effects The EPA may consider the availability of information on emissions from co

- l ocated and nearby sources and consider if it is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects from emissions from the s ources in the category when combined with other emissions from other sources that are co - located or located nearby. Relevant emissions may include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects. Thr ough the BSCP industry ’s responses to the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey , we have substantial information on the locations of BSCP plants and the levels of HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### emitted from those plants. BSCP plants are not commonly co

located with any other type of operation s. They are typically located near the source of the raw materials on large tracts of land from which raw materials are extracted. This provides an addition al buffer between the BSCP plants and the surrounding

area. B ecause of the relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from the BSCP plants are located clos e to the facility property line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non - BSCP emissions , the location and emissions associated with other sources not in the BSCP M anufacturing source category are far less certain. While the EPA 2008 survey and EPA 2010 survey data for BSCP facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and

### Page 99 of 425
scientists, the em issions levels and locations of nearby other facilities, such as those in the NEI, have not undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions may contain significant uncertainty. However, as discussed above, bec ause of the large footprint of BSCP facilities , their rural locations and the BSCP risks being confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the combined emissions of HF, HCl or Cl 2 

### from BSCP facilities and nearby other sources would result i n substantial cumulative health and environmental effects
. 3. How did the EPA set the level of the standard? Based on the EPA’s findings, including the minimal cumulative health and environmental effects expected from co

located and nearby sources, the minimal co

- benefits of setting technology

- based MACT standards for acid gases, the minimal ecosystem impacts fro m setting a health

- based standard in place of a MACT standard and the availability of data to determine a health

- based standard, the EPA is proposing to exercise its discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is consistent with the EPA’s prio r decisions where we found it appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the circumstances in this case differ from those previous

### Page 100 of 425
considerations. We request comment on the analysis a nd conclusions regarding setting health

- based standard s . Following from the EPA ’s determin ation that a health

- based standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health effects on which t he threshold is based.
• There must be no observable adverse effect.
• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental effects than the MACT standard that would otherwise be established.
• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from complia nce based on a showing that the source’s emissions do not pose a health risk.
CAA section 112(d)(4) expressly states that the health

based standard must be set at the threshold level “with an ample margin of safety.” In addition, the legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health

- based emission limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no observable effects occur, with an ample margin of safety. 29 

### Because the statute requires an ample margin of safety, it wou ld be reasonable to set any CAA section 112(d)(4) emission standard for a pollutant with a health threshold at a level that at least assures that, for the sources in the controlled category or subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant woul d not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold

29 

### See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32030/2 (June 4, 2010), citing S.Rep. 101

– 228 a t 171

– 72.

### Page 101 of 425
is based. 30 

### The legislative history also states that establishing

a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT standard “shall not result in adverse environmental effects which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated.” 31 

### The EPA’s decision to exercise its discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4) will not be used to exclude sources from compliance. The EPA does not believe that a plain reading of the statute supports the establishment of an approach in which the EPA excludes specific facilities from complying with emissions limits if the facility demonstrates that it s emissions do not pose a health risk. While CAA section 112(d)(4) authorizes the EPA to consider the level of the health threshold for pollutants which have an established threshold, that threshold may be considered when establishing emissions standards u nder CAA section 112(d). Therefore, the EPA must still establish emissions standards under CAA section 112(d) even if it chooses to exercise its discretion to consider an established health threshold. 32 

### As part of the development of the proposed standards, we have maintained an inventory of major source facilities,

30 

### See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010). 31 

### See Portland C ement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54985/2 (September 9, 2010), citing S.Rep. 101

- 228 at 171

- 72. 32 

### See Boiler MACT Final Rule , 76 FR 15608, 15643/3

- 14644/1 (March 21, 2011). See also MATS Final Rule , 77 FR 9304, 9406/1 ( February 16, 2012) (same point using nearly identical text).

### Page 102 of 425 including the size and operating hours of each tunnel kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes ( e.g. , stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each tunnel kiln stack. To deve lop a health

- based emission limit, both long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the BSCP manufacturing source category were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM

- 3 version 1.3.1). The H EM

– 3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) c onducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers of th e modeled sources and (3) estimating individual and population

- level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose

- response information. The air dispersion model used by the HEM

– 3 model (AERMOD) is one of the EPA’s preferred models fo r assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities. To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM

- 3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispers ion calculations. This library includes one year (2011) of hourly surface and upper air observations for 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau

### Page 103 of 425

census block internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations. 33 

### In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. The chronic and acute v alues for the acid gases evaluated in this assessment are presented in Tables 7 and 8 of this preamble, respectively. Further information on the development and sources of these benchmarks and the overall modeling approach is presented in the technical mem orandum, “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291.

**Table 7**  **— Dose**  **- Response Values for Chronic Inhalation Ex**  **posure to Acid Gases** 

**Pollutant CAS Number**  **a** 

### RfC **(mg/m 3**  

### ) **Source** Hydro gen chlori de 7647010 0.02 IRIS Hydro gen fluori de 7664393 0.014 C alEPA Chlorine 7782505 0.00015 ATSDR

a 

### Chemical Abstract Services identification number. For groups of compounds

33 

### USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/download

human

- exposure - model

- he m .

### Page 104 of 425
that lack a CAS number, we have used a surrogate 3

- digit identifier corresponding to the group’s position on the CAA list of HAP.



### Table **8 —**  **Dose -**  **Response Values for Acute Inhalation Exposure to**  **Acid Gases a** 



### Pollutant **CAS Number**  **AEGL -**  **1 (1**  **- hr)**  **(mg/m 3**  

### ) **AEGL -**  **2 (1**  **- hr)**  **(mg/m 3**  

### ) **ERPG -**  **1 (mg/m**  **3** 

### ) **ERPG -**  **2 (mg/m**  **3** 

### ) **REL** Hydro gen chlori de 7647010 2.7 33 4.5 30 2.1 Hydro gen fluori de 7664393 0.82 20 1.6 16 0.24 Chlorine 7782505 1.5 5.8 2.9 8.7 0.21

a 

### AEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level, ERPG = Emergency Response Planning Guideline


### In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each acid gas emitted by each source in the so urce category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by
comp aring a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by a reference level ( e.g. , the RfC). For a given acid gas, exposures at or below the reference level (HQ less than or equal to 1) are not likely to cause ad verse health effects. As exposures increase above the reference level (HQs increasingly greater than 1), the potential for adverse effects increases. For a typical risk assessment where multiple pollutants are co

- emitted, we aggregate noncancer HQs of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or (where

### Page 105 of 425 this information is absent) that affect the same target organ. This process creates, for each target organ , a specific hazard index ( TOSHI ) defined as the sum of HQ s for individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system. Because we performed HEM

3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at BSCP facilities, but a 250 tpy level of HCl

- equ ivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not exceeded as long as the HCl

- equivalent emissions do not exceed 250 tpy. It is important to note that this emission limit is only applicable to the sources in this source c ategory and should not be considered for sources other than those included in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for other acid gases are determined by the ratio of the chronic RfCs to that for HCl, such that the HCl

equivalent emissions for HF are 175 tp y and for Cl 2 

### are 1.9 tpy. For the assessment of potential health risks from acute exposures to the acid gases, we performed a screening assessment using conservative assumptions that in combination approximate a
worst

- case exposure. The acute exposure sce nario assumed worst

case meteorology (from one year of local meteorology) and that a person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during this same worst

- case 1

- hour period, but no nearer to the source

### Page 106 of 425

than 100 meters , which is conservative for this industry given our understanding of the locations of these facilities
. Screening for potentially significant acute inhalation exposures also followed the HQ approach. We divided the maximum estimated acute exposure by each available short

- term thresh old value to develop an array of HQ values relative to the various acute endpoints and thresholds. In general, when none of these HQ values are greater than 1 , there is low potential for acute risk. In those cases where HQ values above 1 are seen, addition al information is used to determine if there is a potential for significant acute risks. Additional information for facilities in the BSCP manufacturing source category included using aerial imagery of the facilities to determine the maximum offsite 1

- hour concentrations. Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic dose

- response values, the 250 tpy level does not necessarily ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl and Cl 2 

### model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ values exceeding 1 . For HF, we estimate that four of the 91 facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL , with the highest being 2. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL

- 1) value fo r HF. To assure that no source emit s more than the 250 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour , we propose

### Page 107 of 425 setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 250 tpy ( 57 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent emissions )
. It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds are developed from back

- calculating the emissions that would result in an HQ of 1 at the worst

- case facility. Potential risks at other facilities (not the worst

- case facility) are predicted to be well below 1.
Because we had site

- specific data on the operation of each tunnel kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure that (1) the health

- based emission limit cited above for BSCP facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) pers ons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is based. In addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions associated with BSCP kilns, based on results from the EPA’s envir onmental risk screen methodology outlined above , are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact. Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the health

based emission limit by determining their facility

- wide HCl, HF and Cl 2 

### emissions, calculatin g the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF and Cl 2 

### using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HCl

- equivalent values to calculate the total HCl

- equivalent emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . For more information on

### Page 108 of 425
the development of the health

- based standard see the technical memorandum “ Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emissions Limit ation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Catego ry ” in Docket ID N o.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291. For more information on the calculation of an HCl

- equivalent value, see the technical memorandum

“ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP
NESHAP ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. K
. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. T he EPA is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for certain HAP from certain BSCP manufacturing sources is not feasible because the application of measurement methodology to certain sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Specifically, t he EPA is proposing a work practice standard for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of emission limit s for acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### ), Hg and non - Hg HAP metals . The EPA is also proposing a work practice standard for dioxin/f uran emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of a dioxin/furan emission limit. The rationale for these work practice standards is discussed in the paragraphs below. We request comment on how

### Page 109 of 425 the work practice standards were developed and the proposed
stan dards themselves. 1. Periodic Kilns

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Emission Standard Overview . Periodic kilns are batch process units that are used for firing BSCP under a carefully controlled environment. The large majority of BSCP are fired in tunnel kilns, which operate continuously and are much more energy

- efficient than periodic kilns when producing BSCP of a uniform type, such as standard building bricks. In contrast, periodic kilns can readily accommodate variations in fir ing temperature profiles and cycle times to match the requirements of a wide variety of products. As a result, periodic kilns generally are reserved for specialty products and typically are used only when necessary. 34 

### In the BSCP industry, periodic kilns ar e classified as either beehive kilns or shuttle kilns, but all operate generally the same. A batch of unfired bricks or shapes is loaded into the cold kiln, the kiln is sealed and the burners are ignited and controlled to carefully increase the temperature according to a time

- temperature profile specific to the products being manufactured. Once firing is complete, the temperature in the

34 

### See the memorandum titled “ Rationale for Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.

### Page 110 of 425 kiln is reduced, the burners are extinguished and the fired product is allowed to cool. When the product is at or near amb ient temperature, the kiln is opened and the fired products are removed. 35 

### Based on responses to the 2008 EPA survey sent to the BSCP industry, periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 to 168 hours per cycle and typically take 48 to 58 hours. These cycle times cover the period beginning when the burners are first ignited and ending when the burners are cut off. It may take an additional 8 to 10 hours for the fired products to cool before they can be removed from the kiln. 36 

### Emissions . Based on limited data from the testing of three BSCP periodic kilns using Method 320 (Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy), emissions of HF and HCl begin within the first 5 to 10 hours of the firing cycle and continue throu ghout the firing cycle. Emissions are highly variable and can experience large spikes at various points throughout the cycle. In addition, it is likely that emissions continue beyond the completion of the firing cycle, as the fired products cool. HF

concen trations in the kiln exhaust can still exceed 100 parts per million at the end of the firing cycle. 37

35 

### Id. 36 

### Id. 37 

### Id.

### Page 111 of 425 Testing Periodic Kilns for Emissions of HF and HCl . The conventional compliance test requirement for most emission sources is to test each source for three 1

- hour test runs. This requirement is based on the assumptions that the source operates continuously and that emissions are relatively constant. However, there generally are some variations in emissions. For this reason, the source is tested over three se parate runs and the results are averaged to generate a number that is representative of typical emissions. 38 

### Unlike continuous sources, emissions from BSCP periodic kilns can vary significantly over the course of one cycle. Because of these variations and t he fact that emissions begin shortly after the start of the firing cycle and continue beyond the end of the cycle for an undetermined period of time, the conventional compliance test requirement of three 1

- hour test

runs cannot accurate ly measure emissions . Instead , the only way to accurately determine the total emissions from a BSCP periodic kiln cycle is to measure the emissions throughout the entire firing cycle and continuing beyond the completion of the cycle until emission levels become negligible. Te sting for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are either much

38 

### Id.

### Page 112 of 425 higher or much lower than actual emissions, depending on when during the kiln cycle emissions are sampled. 39 

### Because of the variations during firing cycles and variations acros s the tests, sampling a single kiln cycle is not adequate for characterizing periodic kiln emissions, so more than one kiln cycle would have to be tested. Given that BSCP periodic kiln cycle times typically range from 48 to 58 hours, each periodic kiln wou ld need to be tested for more than 100 hours in order to determine an emission rate that is representative of normal operating conditions. Also, because BSCP periodic kilns are used to fire specialty products that may have significantly differently time

- te mperature profiles, it would be necessary to test the same kiln multiple times to characterize emissions from different types of products. 40


### Test Methods . The standard reference methods for measuring emissions of HF and HCl are EPA Methods 26 and 26A. These methods are reliable and relatively inexpensive. However, if emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns, breakthrough of HCl can occur. That is, the testing apparatus reaches its capacity for abso rbing HCl and subsequent HCl in the emissions are not captured. It is not known if breakthrough has occurred until a

39 

### Id. 40 

### Id.

### Page 113 of 425 breakthrough analysis is performed after completion of the test. If it is determined that breakthrough has occurred, retesting is
necessary . Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout periodic kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover samples. 41 

### An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduc t the tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320. With FTIR, HCl breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides near real

- time emissions data. However, as noted in the following section, the cost for testing by FTIR is expensive, similar t o the cost for testing by Methods 26 or 26A throughout an entire cycle. 42 

### Emission Test Costs . The cost for testing by FTIR is estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50

- hour kiln cycle. If it were determined that the variations in emissions fro m cycle to cycle were significant, it would be necessary to test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the testing cost to almost $100,000 and testing for a third cycle would triple the cost to almost $150,000 (2009 dollars) . In addition to these costs, additional costs would be

41 

### Id. 42 

### Id.

### Page 114 of 425 incurred for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be tested using a manual test method ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5 or 17). If testing were extended into the cooling period, the costs would be even higher. 43


### To address the potential economic impact of a requirement to test periodic kilns , we conducted a cost

- to

- sales assessment. (See the memorandum “Economic Feasibility of Testing Periodic Brick Kilns” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 .) T he conclusion that testing is not economically feasible for most of the kilns is quite clear. Over half o f the kilns included in the analysis have estimated co st

- to

- sales percentages greater than 3 percent. The economic analysis estimates that for the upper end of the closure estimate for the other kilns when the costs are between 3 percent and 5 percent , one - quarter of the firms will close. This possibility of closure makes this level of costs for testing not economically feasible. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Periodic Kilns . CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, consiste nt with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section

43 

### Id.

### Page 115 of 425
112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this context to apply when “the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Because of the technological and economic limitations described above, we conclude that it is not practicabl e to establish numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for periodic kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures that are economically infeasible for the BSCP industry. Conseque ntly, we are proposing a work practice standard for BSCP periodic kilns under CAA section 112(h). 44


### b. Development of Work Practice Standard Information provided to the EPA indicates there are six operational factors that have a direct bearing on HAP emissions from BSCP periodic kilns: t emperature, firing cycle, product quality, automatic control, combustion control and kiln load/kiln technology. 45 

### These six operational factors and their impact on HAP emissions are described further in the paragraphs below. Temperature . Various scientific test methods are used to study the reactions in brick clays during heating. Differential

44 

### Id. 45 

### See the memorandum titled “ Work Practice Standards f or Periodic Kiln Operations ,” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.

### Page 116 of 425 thermal analysis, therm o gravimetric analysis and simultaneous thermal analysis are techniques used to show the oxidation, de

hydroxylation and vitrification reactions, as well as the weight loss characteristics of the material. Knowledge of these reaction characteristics would enable the brick manufacturer to design the kiln firing cycle for the optimization of the product quality and to minimize process losses. Ensuring good product quality and minimizing process losses would eliminate the need for additional production firing cycles to meet the quantities demanded by the market, thereby avoiding the generation of additional HAP emissions. 46 

### Firing Cycle . Each periodic firing process in the brick industry is unique and is governed by the nature of the brick clay material being fi red. For example, some shale materials have higher carbon and sulfur levels and require a longer “dwell” at the oxidation temperature range from 1 , 600 °F to 1 , 700 °F , while other clay materials are more refractory in nature and require higher final firing temperatures in order to develop the desired finished color and the physical properties to meet the ASTM standards required by the market. These factors influence the period of time in the oxidation stages, as well as the time required in the final “soak” stage of the firing cycle.

46 

### Id.

### Page 117 of 425 HAP emissions have also been shown to take place in these stages of the firing cycle. 47 

### Consequently, knowledge of these factors is key to avoiding any additional emissions during these stages. Product Quality . The time and temper ature relationships previously described affect the ultimate quality and acceptability of the finished product. An “over

- fired” product would produce excessive shrinkage, color variation and process losses. This type of firing cycle would likely produce hi gher HAP emissions per ton of ware fired. Similarly, an under

- fired product would not meet durability standards required by the ASTM standards and the market. While under

- firing the product would produce less HAP emissions, more product would have to be fi red to meet production requirements, which would lead to more HAP emissions per sellable ton of ware. Therefore, any work practice standard would need to be a practice that produces the best product quality and the minimum HAP emissions. This optimized

wor k practice would entail developing an optimum firing cycle for each particular brick clay body. 48 

### Automatic Control . The design of the kiln firing system influences the brick manufacturers’ ability to achieve repeatable, maximum product quality results. Mos t periodic kiln operators in the brick industry have used modern programmable

47 

### Id. 48 

### Id.

### Page 118 of 425 logic controller (PLC) technology for some time. These systems enable the brick manufacturer to program the kiln firing temperature over a well

- established, optimized time cycle, to achieve repeatable results. Modern high

- velocity burner technology is commonly employed. 49 

### Achieving repeatable, maximum product quality results would eliminate the need to fire additional product to meet production requirements, thereby avoiding the ge neration of additional HAP emissions. Combustion Control . The use of PLC technology enables the rate of gas delivery to the burner system to be accurately programmed, to ensure that each stage of the firing cycle is accurately controlled and to avoid over

- firing or under

- firing. The measuring devices that are part of the combustion equipment enable the kiln operator to adjust the air

- to

- fuel ratios in each stage, to achieve the optimum combustion efficiency needed to produce the desired product. In this way , the production of poor quality, rejects and losses is minimized. Technology that does not achieve this would produce higher losses and poor quality, resulting in additional production firing cycles being required to meet the quantities demanded by the ma rket and additional HAP emissions. 50

49 

### Id. 50 

### Id.

### Page 119 of 425 Kiln Load/Kiln Technology . For proper combustion, it is important that the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as overloading could cause improper combustion and lost product, resulting in additional production firing cycle s and additional HAP emissions. To ensure proper firing, the following parameters should be addressed: 51



### • Employment of draft controls on exhaust fans to adjust exhaust volume flow.
• Measurement, monitoring and control of kiln pressure by adjustment of kiln e xhaust.
• Measurement and monitoring of kiln temperatures.
• Measurement and control of air and fuel flow to the combustion system. Work Practice Standard . Based on these six operational factors, the following work practice standard is proposed under CAA secti on 112(h): 52



### • Each facility would have to d evelop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln, by programming the time and temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on a log sheet.
• Each f acility would have to l abel each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle.
• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the maxi mum load and document the total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.
• Each facility would have to d evelop and implement maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following items:

51 

### Id. 52 

### See the email titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the proposed BSCP rulemaking.

### Page 120 of 425

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices o Controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios o Controls that regulate firing cycles
• Each facility would have to d evelop and maint ain records required for each periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper operation of the periodic kilns and logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the standard. 2. Dioxin /Furan Emissions

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard The significant majority of measured dio xin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are BDL and the EPA considers it impracticable to reliably measure dioxin/furan emissions from these units. (Note: Both dioxin/furan emissions and detection levels are in terms of 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - diox in ( TCDD ) toxic equivalents ( TEQ ) .) The fact that the majority of measurements are so low casts doubt on whether the tests accurately measured the true levels of emissions. The dioxin s /furan s for each run w ere compared to one

- half the RDL developed for uti lities. 53 

### Overall, 15 out of 18 test runs ( 83 percent of the entire test run dataset ) contained dioxin/furan estimates below one

- half of the RDL. Based on the difficulties with accurate measurements at the levels of dioxins/furans encountered from tunnel ki lns and the economics associated with units trying to apply measurement methodology to test for

53 

### Johnson, S. Determination o f “non

- detect” from EPA Method 29 (multi

- metals) and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of MACT floors versus establishing work practice standards
. June 5, 2014
.

### Page 121 of 425 compliance with numerical limits, we are conclud ing that application of measurement methodology is not practicable and

are proposing to set a work practice standard under CAA section 112(h). We request comment on the rationale for setting work practice standards. b. Work Practice Standard The proposed work practice standard described below ensures that equipment is maintained and run so as to minimize emissions of dioxins and furans. The work practice would involve maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable), tuning the specific burner type to optimize combu stion, keeping records of each burner tune

- up and submitting a report for each tune

- up conducted. Dioxins/furans are products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and optimizing combustion limits the formation of PIC , thereby minimizing emissions of dioxins/fura ns. We are proposing that t he tune

- up must be conducted no less frequently than every 36 calendar months. Initial compliance with the work practice standard of maintaining burners must occur within 180 days of the compliance date of the BSCP manufacturing rule . The initial compliance demonstration for the work practice standard of conducting a tune

- up must occur no later than 42 months (36 months plus 180 days) from the

### Page 122 of 425
effective date of the final BSCP manufacturing rule
. We request comment on the proposed work practice standards.
L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements? As noted in section III.B of this preamble, tunnel kilns typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a tunnel kiln involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the kiln to th e proper operational temperature for manufacturing bricks or structural clay products. Shutdown of a tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. When the temperatu re of the kiln is below the proper operational temperature, BSCP manufacturers typically do not push new product into the kiln, so the emissions are not expected to be the same during startup and shutdown as during normal operations. While the kiln is heat ing to the proper operational temperature during startup or cooling from the operational temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust flow rate, moisture content, O 2 

### concentration and pressure are also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown progresses, as the kiln does not heat or cool evenly. The

### Page 123 of 425 fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the relatively steady

- state conditions needed for valid , accurate results over three test runs using the measurement methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, most of the emission limit formats chosen for this proposed BSCP manufacturing r ule are not appropriate for use during periods other than normal operation. For example, i f there is no throughout in the kiln, emission limits that are in a mass per throughput format would be essentially meaningless. In addition,
t he concentration based

- standards are corrected to a specified O 2 

### concentration to avoid the use of dilution air to lower the measured concentration , but during startup and shutdown, the O 2 

### concentration in the kiln exhaust is likely to fluctuate. This means that even if an owner or operator could conduct an emissions test and measure the O 2 

### content during startup and shutdown for comparison to the O 2 

### - corrected emission limit, the fluctuations in O 2 

### content and other parameters in the kiln mean that the O 2 

### - corrected emissions are also fluctuating. For tunnel kilns with an APCD, venting the kiln exhaust through the APCD at low temperatures can cause operational problems, including moisture in the bags of a baghouse or solidification of the lime in a DIFF. Therefore, the BSCP owners and operators that responded to the SSM portion of the 2010 EPA

### Page 124 of 425

survey indicated that they bypass the APCD if the kiln exhaust temperature is below a “low temperature set point.” Based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey , this kiln exhaust temperature ranges from 284 to 400 °F for startup and from 150 to 300 °F for shutdown. All of the EPA survey respondents indicated that no new product is introduced to the kiln as long as the APCD is bypassed, so that emissions are minimized. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature rea ches 400 °F. In addition, no bricks or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. W hen the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable

### Page 125 of 425 continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of this preamble. For kilns that can meet the proposed standar ds without an APCD, there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown
. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no bricks o r other product
may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. W hen the re are bricks in the kiln, the own er or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of this preamble.
M
. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements? We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the requirements of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . These requirements are described in detail in sections III. F and III. G of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our

### Page 126 of 425
determinatio n of the information necessary to ensure that the emission standards are being met and the work practices are being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and operated properly. Further, t hese proposed requirements ensure compliance with this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule without imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them. We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission limits for HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , PM (or non

- Hg HAP metals) and Hg be demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would also require 5

- year repeat performance tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating properly and that its performance has not deteriorated. The majority of test methods that this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require for the performance stack tests ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many other EPA standards. Many of the emissio ns tests upon which the proposed emission limits are based were conducted using these test methods. When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To ensure continuous compliance with t he proposed emission limits, the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require continuous parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these

### Page 127 of 425 parameters within the operating limits established during the performance test. We selected these pa rameter monitoring requirements because they produce data that will be useful to both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease of e xecution. The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the BSCP industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; pressure drop (or bypass stack damper position) and limestone feeder setting for DLA; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; and activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems. If applicable for demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### standard, t he kiln monitoring parameter included in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is the kiln process rate. Many of these CPMS are standard features on BSCP tunnel kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other standards for similar industries. In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for kilns equipped with a FF ( e.g. , a DIFF , DLS/FF or stand

- alone FF) to either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS

### Page 128 of 425 being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other standards in similar industries. We have also determined that periodic VE checks are a reasonable alterna tive to BLD systems for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . Periodic VE checks have also been proposed for kilns without an add

- on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.
N
. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under
CAA section 112(i)(1), n ew or reconstructed units must be in compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or the effective da te of the final rule, whichever is later. ( Th e final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register
. ) Under CAA section 112(i)(3), e xisting sources are allowed up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply with the final rule. For this industry , w e believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, install and test any control systems that may need to be retrofitted onto existing kilns , as well as obtain permits for the use of add

- on controls
.

### Page 129 of 425 The compliance date for e xisting area sources that subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5). W e are proposing that such sources have 3 years from the date they become major sources to come into compliance , which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing sources discussed in the previous paragraph
. Further, under the current regulations in 40 C FR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or operations that meet the definition of new affected source under
t his rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.
O
. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the proposed rule? The owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 8 of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enforceme nt of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the

### Page 130 of 425

amount of product fired in the periodic kiln, to address the operational factors that impact HAP emissions from periodic kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard for periodic kilns ( discussed further in section IV. K .1 of this preamble)
. I n addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator keep records and submit a report of each burner tune

- up that is conducted to ensure good combustion practice and minimize the formation of dioxin s /furan s from incomplete combustion , to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns (discussed further in section IV. K .2 of this preamble)
. We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep

r ecords and submit a report of each malfunction and the corrective actio n taken as part of the next semiannual compliance report
. The proposed compliance report would provide information on each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit
. Th is proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, which is discussed further in section III. I of this preamble
.

### Page 131 of 425 We request comment on ways that we could streamline the recordkeeping and r eporting requirements of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.
P
. How does the proposed rule affect permits? The CAA requires that sources subject to th e BSCP manufacturing rule , once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit issued under an EPA

- approved s tate operating permit program. The operating permit programs are developed under title V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this BSCP manufacturing rule . If the facility is in the last 2 years of an operating permit, the owner or operator wi ll need to incorporate the requirement of this BSCP manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the permit. Q
. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is consider ing ? 1. Alternate Non

- Hg HAP Metals Standards As noted in section IV.E of this preamble, the proposed emission limits for total non

- Hg HAP metals and PM are based on the best performing 27 kilns with a DIFF or DLS/FF ( i.e. , 12 percent of the kilns in the industry). Instead of these proposed limits, w e are considering an alternate approach of setting emission limits for total non

- Hg HAP metals and PM based on MACT

### Page 132 of 425 floors calculated using the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size subcategories , similar to the procedure we followed for setting the Hg limits. The alternate PM limits were calculated using the same procedure as described in section IV.E for Hg . In other words, the kilns were ranked within each subcategory on the basis of their lb/ton PM emissions and the top 12 percent best performing kilns were identified (to p 9 large kilns and top 3 small kilns). Both the PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for existing sources were calculated based on those top 12 percent. The alternate PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for new sources were calculated based on the best performing source in each subcategory. As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the EPA must take considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the BSCP alternate options, we have limited datasets for the following pollutants an d subcategories: PM for new large tunnel kilns and PM for new small tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See the Limited Dataset Memo for more information. The alternate total non - Hg HAP metals limit was calculated using a similar methodology as the proposed total non - Hg HAP metals limit. Since the alternate total non - Hg HAP metals limits were calculated based on smaller datasets, we found that there

### Page 133 of 425 were no small kilns in the top three best performing kilns with both PM and non

- Hg HAP metals data and only one large kiln in the top nine best performing kilns with both PM and non

- Hg HAP metals data. Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non - Hg HAP metals limit for existing sources was calculated by

m ultiplying the alternate PM lb/ton limit by the throughput and the percentage of non - Hg HAP metals measured in the PM during that test. The alternate small kiln non

- Hg HAP metals limit for existing sources was then set equal to the existing source large ki ln non

- Hg HAP metals limit. For new sources, the best performing unit in the PM new source MACT floor pool did not have any non

- Hg HAP metals data . Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non - Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was calculated using the average throughput and the average percentage of non

- Hg HAP metals measured during tests for kilns with a FF

- based APCD. The alternate small kiln non

- Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was then set equal to the new source large kiln non

- Hg HAP metals limit. The alternate emissions limits for existing and new sources are presented in in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Doc ket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. We request comment on the calculation methodology used to generate these alternate limits , which is d escribed in the

### Page 134 of 425
technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ) , as well as comment on whether we should use these limits instead of the limits we are proposing. 2. HAP Metals Work Practice Standard In the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR ) Panel , members of the BSCP manufacturing industry discussed whether work practice standard s for Hg and non - Hg HAP metals would be more appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns than emissions limit s for these pollutants . BSCP manufacturing industry representatives noted the high percentage of test runs below the respective detection limits in the tests results for each metal as support for this suggestion
. We review ed the available stack test data for Hg and non - Hg HAP metals from BSCP tunne l kilns to evaluate this suggestion. For Hg, we found that all test runs were actually above the detection limits. F or the non - Hg HAP metals, we found that only one of the individual non

- Hg HAP metals had a high percentage of test runs below the detection limi t
. W e found a high percentage of test runs above the detection limits for all the other non - Hg
HAP metals
. For more information on this analysis, please see the technical memorandum “ Determination of “Non

- Detect” Test

### Page 135 of 425

Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291
. Because Hg and most of the non - Hg HAP metals are emitted from BSCP kilns in detectable levels, the EPA believes it is technologically practicable to measure these emissions and they do not meet the statutory prerequis ite for work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). C onsequently, we have declined to propose work practice s tandard s for Hg or non - Hg HAP metals
. Although we are not proposing work practices for HAP metals, we are requesting comment on this issue . W e are specifically asking for emissions data or any other information relevant to the issue of whether the metals emissions from these sources meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice standards in CAA section 112(h)
. 3. Emissions Averaging As part of the EPA’s general policy of encouraging the use of flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly monitored and enforced, we are also requesting comment in this proposed rule on whether to include emissions averaging as an alternative to the individual MACT floor emission limits in the proposed rule. Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment on whether to consider alternative emission s averaging limits for PM ( in units of lb/ton or gr/dscf at 7 percent O 2 

### ) and total non

Hg HAP metals ( in units of lb/hr) for existing tunnel kilns.

### Page 136 of 425 Emissions averaging can provide sources the flexibility to comply in the least costly manner while still maintaining regulation that is workable and enforceable. Emissions averaging would not be applicable to n ew sources and could only be used between existing tunnel kilns in the same size subcategory (large or small) at a particular BSCP facility. Emissions averaging would allow owners and operators of an affected source to demonstrate that the source complies with the emission limits by averaging the emissions from an individual affected unit that is emitting above the emission limits with other affected units at the same facility that are emitting below the emission limits. We are requesting comment on whether to include an emissions averaging compliance alternative in which emissions averaging represents an equivalent, more flexible, and less costly alternative to controlling certain emission points to MACT levels. A limited form of averaging could be implemented that would not lessen the stringency of the MACT floor limits and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost and energy savings to owners and operators. We also recognize that we must ensure that any emissions ave raging option can be implemented and enforced, will be clear to sources, and would be no less stringent than unit by unit implementation of the MACT floor limits.

### Page 137 of 425 The EPA has concluded that it is permissible under the appropriate circumstances to establish within a NESHAP a unified compliance regimen that permits averaging within an affected source across individual affected units subject to the standard under certain conditions. Averaging across affected units is permitted only if it can be demonstrated th at the total quantity of any particular HAP that may be emitted by that portion of a contiguous major source that is subject to the NESHAP will not be greater under the averaging mechanism than it could be if each individual affected unit complied separate ly with the applicable standard. Under this test, the practical outcome of averaging is equivalent to compliance with the MACT floor limits by each discrete unit, and the statutory requirement that the MACT standard reflect the maximum achievable emissions reductions is, therefore, fully effectuated. In past rulemakings, the EPA has generally imposed certain limits on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. These limits include: (1) no averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no av eraging between sources that are not part of the same affected source, (3) no averaging between individual sources within a single major source if the individual sources are not subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources.

### Page 138 of 425 Any emissions averaging alternative to the proposed rule requirements would fully satisfy each of these criteria. First, emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual sources at a single existing affected source, and would onl y be permitted between individual sources subject to the Brick and Structural Clay NESHAP. Further, emissions averaging would not be permitted between two or more different affected sources or between two or more sources in different subcategories. Finally , new sources could not use emissions averaging. In addition,any emissions averaging alternative would require each facility that intends to utilize emissions averaging to submit an emissions averaging plan, which provides additional assurance that the

nec essary criteria will be followed. In such an emissions averaging plan, the facility would include the identification of: (1) all units in the averaging group, (2) the control technology installed, (3) the process parameter that will be monitored, (4) the s pecific control technology or pollution prevention measure to be used, (5) the test plan for the measurement of the HAP being averaged, and (6) the operating parameters to be monitored for each control device. Upon receipt, the regulatory authority would n ot be able to approve an emissions averaging plan containing averaging between emissions of different types of pollutants or between sources in different subcategories.

### Page 139 of 425 This emissions averaging alternative would also exclude new affected sources from the e missions averaging provision. The EPA believes emissions averaging is not appropriate for new sources because it is most cost effective to integrate state

- of

- the

- art controls into equipment design and to install the technology during construction of new so urces. One reason to allow emissions averaging under certain circumstances is to give existing sources flexibility to achieve compliance at diverse points with varying degrees of add

- on control already in place in the most cost

- effective and technically re asonable fashion. This flexibility is not needed for new sources because they can be designed and constructed with compliance in mind. With concern about the equivalency of emissions reductions from averaging and non

- averaging in mind, we would also includ e under the emissions averaging provision caps on the current emissions from each of the sources in the averaging group. The emissions for each unit in the averaging group would be capped at the emission level being achieved on the effective date of the fi nal rule. These caps would ensure that emissions do not increase above the emission levels that sources currently are designed, operated, and maintained to achieve. In the absence of performance tests, in documenting these caps, these sources would documen t the type, design, and operating specification of control devices installed on the effective date of the final

### Page 140 of 425 rule to ensure that existing controls are not removed or operated less efficiently. By including this provision in this proposed rule, we would further ensure that emissions averaging results in environmental benefits equivalent to or better than without emissions averaging. In addition, we would plan to include a discount factor of 10 percent that would be applied when emissions averaging is used . This discount factor will further ensure that averaging will be at least as stringent as the MACT floor limits in the absence of averaging. The EPA is soliciting comment on use of a discount factor and whether 10 percent is the appropriate discount facto r or whether the appropriate discount factor is somewhere in the range of 5% to 25% . The emissions averaging provision would not apply to individual units if the unit shares a common stack with units in other subcategories, because in that circumstance it is not possible to distinguish the emissions from each individual unit. The alternative emissions averaging provisions for which we are requesting comment in this proposed rule are based in part on the emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organi c NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and rationale for the HON emissions averaging provisions were provided in the preamble to the final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22, 1994). 4. Subcategories Based on Raw Materials

### Page 141 of 425
The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to create subcat egories which distinguish among ‘‘classes, types, and sizes of sources’’. Section 112(d)(1). EPA is taking comment on subcategorizing w ith regard to potential standards for mercury emitted by brick kilns. Were EPA to do so, each subcategory would have its own floor and standard, reflecting performance of the sources within that subcategory. EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, rather than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts warrant. Normally, any basis for subcategori zing must be related to an effect on emissions, rather than to some difference among sources which does not affect emissions performance. The subcategorization possibility for mercury which we are considering is the mercury concentration of the raw materia ls in the kiln’s clay mine, or geographic location. EPA does not have sufficient data to determine if mercury emissions correlate with the mercury content of the clay used as raw material by the kiln. Additionally, EPA does not have data that show to what extent mercury content of clay varies by kiln location (i.e., geographical distinction) or within a given source of clay, and to what extent a source could reduce mercury emissions by using an alternate source of clay with lower mercury content.

### Page 142 of 425

If data were available to show that the amount of mercury in the raw materials significantly affected mercury emissions, and that kilns could not reasonably use an alternative source of clay with lower mercury content, kilns using raw materials with higher mercury content might be considered a different type or class of kiln because their process necessarily requires the use of that higher

- mercury raw materials. However, data are not available to support subcategorization based on the amount of mercury in the raw m aterials. Such data would need to show a correlation between raw material content and mercury emissions and also need to indicate sharp disparities in raw material mercury content that readily differentiate among types of sources. Additionally, data would also be needed to show that alternate sources of raw materials with lower mercury content are not available or feasible. We are specifically asking for mercury emissions data coupled with raw materials mercury data. We are also asking for information
rega rding the availability of low mercury clay and the feasibility of using low mercury clay to reduce emissions. EPA realizes that if this data is not currently available, obtaining this data may not be possible within the current schedule to promulgate the f inal rule. Therefore, EPA requests comment on possible approaches to resolve this issue.

### Page 143 of 425 V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Category This section summarizes the requirements for the C lay Ceramics M anufacturing source category proposed in today’s action. Section VI of this preamble provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.
A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule? Today’s proposed rule for C lay C eramics M anufacturing applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The
C lay C eramics M anufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitar yware (toilets and sinks).
B. What are the affected sources? The affected sources , which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1)

e ach ceramic tile roller kiln; ( 2 ) each floor tile press dryer ; ( 3 ) each c eramic tile spray dryer; ( 4 ) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying ; ( 5 ) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; ( 6 ) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and ( 7 ) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth
. The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) k ilns that are

### Page 144 of 425 used exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously fired products; ( 2 ) g laze spray operations that use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HA P (dry basis); ( 3 ) wall tile press dryers; and ( 4 ) sanitaryware ware dryers. See section VI.A for information on why these sources are not subject to the proposed rule.
C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? This proposed C lay C eramics manufacturing rule applies to

own ers or operat ors of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit , considering controls , 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet? 1. Emission Limitations
We are proposing e mission limits for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations
. We are proposing emission limits for Hg for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns , ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns
.

### Page 145 of 425

We are proposing emission limits for dioxin/furan for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns , floor tile press dryer s and ceramic tile spray dryer s . W e are also proposing a n emission limit for HCl

- equivalent for all existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid gases HF and HCl
. The propos ed emission limits

are presented in Table 9 of this preamble.
**Table 9**  **– Proposed**  **Emission Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources**

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **( lb/hr**  **HCl**   ** equivalent** **) a**  

### Hg **(lb/ton) PM**  **b** 

### (lb/ton) **Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm**  **at 7 percent**  **O 2**  

### ) **c** 

### Limits for existing sources Floor tile roller kilns 140 1. 3 E

- 04 0. 1 8 4.6 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0.19 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 44 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E

- 04 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0.12 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 04 1.9

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 1.2 E

- 04 0. 33 1.5 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 33

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application -- -- 12

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 8.8

-- Limits for new sources Floor tile roller kilns 140 3.9 E

- 05 0.027 1.5 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0.19 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0.17 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E

- 0 4 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0.12 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 04 0.61

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 1.2 E

- 04 0.095 0.37 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 3.8

--

### Page 146 of 425

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **( lb/hr**  **HCl**   ** equivalent** **) a**  

### Hg **(lb/ton) PM**  **b** 

### (lb/ton) **Dioxins/furans (ng/dscm**  **at 7 percent**  **O 2**  

### ) **c** 

### Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application -- -- 3.2

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 2.2

--

a 

### Limit applies to all kilns at facility. b 

### PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals. c 

### ng/dscm = nano gram s per dry standard cubic meter
.


### 2. Work Practice Standards We are proposing work practice standard s in lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non - Hg HAP metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns . The work practice standards would require using natural gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle kiln; l abel ing each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load ; developing and im plementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance ; and developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the shuttl e kilns.
E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

### Page 147 of 425

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section
II. B of this preamble. S tandards for periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in this section
. We are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutd own, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the
APCD. W hen the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in secti on V.G of this preamble.
We are also proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s and sanitaryware

### Page 148 of 425
tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exh aust temperature reaches 400 °F . For shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. W hen the re are ceramics in the kiln or dryer , the owner or operator would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble )
. We are not proposing alternate standards for periods o f startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown.
F
. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specif ied EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test would need to be conducted before renewing the facility ’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial perform ance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised.

### Page 149 of 4 25
Under today’s proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , the owner or operator would need to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or operator would measure HF and HCl from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Station ary Sources

- Isokinetic Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8;
• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid particulate ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, provided the test follow s the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Metho d 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Foll owing the performance test, the owner or operator would calculate the HCl

- equivalent for the kiln using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8595( f )(4) (i) . If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HCl

equivalent for each k iln using proposed Equation 5 in 40 CFR 63.8 59 5(f)( 4 )(ii) to get the total facility HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the proposed limitation.

### Page 150 of 425 We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanita ryware first

fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3;
• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, where the test results would report the weigh t of the PM on the filter as PM filterable; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns , ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns. We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic til e and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. We are also proposing that the owner or operator measure dioxin/furan emiss ions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers , floor tile press dryers and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns using EPA Method 23, “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p - Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A

- 7 or any other alternative method that has been approved b y

### Page 151 of 425
the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements that are being proposed. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator would need to install the CPMS eq uipment to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator would use the CPMS to establish site

specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DL S/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

- flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator would be required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. If there are d ifferent average feed rate values during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator would need to submit analyses and supporting documentation demo nstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.

### Page 152 of 425

For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM perf ormance test , the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl performance tests . For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator would need to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3

- hour block average value. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

specific pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rat e operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the site

specific operating limits.
For an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or
op erator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests and determine the 3

- hour block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific activated carbon flow rate

### Page 153 of 425 operating l imit. If different average activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit. If the owner or operator intend s to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating temperature of the process ( tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average operating temperature . The average of the three test runs establishes the site

- specific operating limit.
For sources with no APCD installed, we are proposing that the owner or operator calculat e the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using proposed Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8 59 5( g )( 1 ) (i)
. The owner or operator would u se the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example , if the design capacity of the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the own er or operator would need
to sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent and compare

### Page 154 of 425 this value to the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases . If the total facility max imum potential HCl

equivalent is greater than the proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there

are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that would result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent that remains at or below the proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would become the operating limit(s) for process rate. W e are also proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating temperature of a source during the dioxin/furan performanc e test and determine the 3

- hour block average operating temperature. The average of the three test runs establishes the site

- specific operating limit for temperature
. G
. What are the continuous compliance requirements? Today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing r ule proposes that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or ope rator would need to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters

### Page 155 of 425 established during the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or opera tor would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation checks, and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator would need to calculate and record the 3

- hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator would need
to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period
. For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) health

- based emission limit by maintain ing free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions

### Page 156 of 425 according to the OM&M pl an. The owner or operator would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the proposed r ule would provide the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit. For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a
BLD sys tem alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting p eriod. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and if corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm , the alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitor ing VE, we are proposing that the owner or operator perform daily, 15

- minute VE observations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and

### Page 157 of 425 Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. During the VE observations, the source would need to be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tes ts, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that source . If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according t o the OM&M plan and the owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
For a stand

- alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit
. For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the ow ner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow
rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performanc e
test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber pressure

### Page 158 of 425 drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test would demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liqu id pH and chemical ( e.g. , lime, caustic) addition rate at or above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl performance test would demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) health

- based emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average f or scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl performance tests would demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI sy stem , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limit s by continuously monitor ing the activated carbon flow rate and maintain ing it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance
test s . If the owner or operator intend s to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the operating temper ature of the process ( tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) and maintaining it at or above the average

### Page 159 of 425 operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dr yer and
at or below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer
. For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conduct ing a daily inspection to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conduct ing weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conduct ing annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment
. For baffles on a spray glazing operation , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate com pliance with the PM emission limit by conduct ing an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.
For a source with no APCD , we are proposing that , to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit , the owner or operator m onitor VE as described above ; and , to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator continuously monitor the operating temperature , determin e and record 3

- hour block averages and maintain the 3

- hour block averages at or above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the

### Page 160 of 425 tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and at or below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer
. In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent was not at or below the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases , then we are proposing that the owner or operator collect and reco rd data documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to maintain the kiln process rate (s) at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent to remain at or below the proposed limitation
. H
. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources would be required to comply with certain requirements of th e General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator would be required to submit a

no tification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to

### Page 161 of 425 include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also be required for e ach semiannual reporting period. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Prov isions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. Specifically, w e are proposing that the owner or operator must keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this proposed Clay Ceramics manufactu ring rule
. • Records of performance tests.
• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance exemption.
• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operating limits ).
• Records of production rates.
• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing proce dures.
• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD
. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
• Logs of the info rmation required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.

### Page 162 of 425

• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken. We are also proposing to require that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.
• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source become s subject to this subpart.
• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration tha t includes a performance test.
• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstration for the work practice standard ).
• Compliance report s semi

- annually , including a report of each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective action taken
. • Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating use of the alternative fuel.
• Results of each performance test within 60 days of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods.
I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA? The ERT provisions being proposed for c lay c eramics manufacturing are the same as those being proposed for BSCP manufacturing. The ERT provisions for BSCP manufacturing are discussed in section III.I of this preamble.
**V I**  **. Rationale for the Proposed Rule**  **for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing** 

### Page 163 of 425

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? Based on our review of the available information on the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that there are three distinc t sectors within the industry: (1) c eramic floor tile; (2) ceramic wall tile; and (3) sanitaryware. Specifically, w e found that the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware sectors of the industry differ in terms of raw materials, processes a nd final products. The primary raw materials used for manufacturing sanitaryware are ball clay , other clays, feldspar and silica, whereas ceramic tile is made primarily from ball clay, talc, nepheline syenite (an igneous rock comprised of nepheline, microc line and albite), fire clay and shale. However, while the raw materials are similar for ceramic floor and wall tile, the mix for ceramic wall tile includes more talc and less ball clay, resulting in a lighter

- weight mix. Regarding processes, ceramic floor tile facilities use spray dryers to process the ceramic mix into a powder to allow tile pressing, followed by press dryers to press the tiles. The tile is then glazed prior to firing in a roller kiln. Ceramic wall tile facilities also use spray and press d ryers, but they are designed, managed and operated to handle the lighter weight raw material mix. Ceramic wall tile is produced in a two

- step firing process using roller

### Page 164 of 425
kilns and it is glazed in between firings. On the other hand, sanitaryware facilities use tunnel kilns to fire the ceramic

ware and they glaze the ware before firing, predominantly using glaze spraying. Ceramic floor tile , ceramic wall tile and s anitaryware also have different characteristics as finished products and compete in different ma rkets. Ceramic floor tile is defined as a vitreous product with a low water absorption rate. Floor tile is known for its multi

- color, variably

- textured, and slip

- resistant characteristics, which are not acceptable in most wall tiles. Ceramic w all tile is d efined as a non - vitreous product required to meet a water absorption rate of 7 to 20 percent, much higher than that required for floor tile
. Wall tile has much more stringent appearance requirements compared to floor tile, with the market demanding that most wall tile be mono

- color, with a high gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring a two

- step firing process). Sanitaryware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low absorption after firing that is used for plumbing and bathroom fixtures and accessories (such as toilets and ceramic sinks). In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the foremost sources of HAP emissions are first

- fire tunnel and p eriodic (shuttle) kilns at sanitaryware facilities and roller kilns at ceramic tile facilities
. Based on emissions testing, the HAP emitted from first

- fire tunnel kilns and roller kilns include

### Page 165 of 425
HF, HCl, Hg, other non

- Hg HAP metals and dioxins/furans. S hutt le kilns are also assumed to emit these pollutants based on similarities in raw materials used in shuttle kilns and first

fire tunnel kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities are glaze lines that employ glaze spraying at ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths at sanitaryware facilities, spray dryers at ceramic tile facilities and press dryers at floor tile facilities. The HAP emitted from ceramic tile glaz e lines include Hg and non - Hg HAP metals, t he HAP emitted f rom sanitaryware glazing operations include non

- Hg HAP metals and the HAP emitted from ceramic tile spray dryers and press dryers are dioxins/furans. Other process units at clay ceramics facilities ( e.g. , raw material processing and handling, wall tile pre ss dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers ) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP. 54 

### For this reason, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule covers those existing and new first

- fire kilns, glaze spray operations, spray dryers and press dryers at major source clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that emit HAP and meet the applicability criteria. Additional c lay ceramics process units that do not meet the applicability criteria include (1) k ilns that are used

54 

### As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press dryers and s anitaryware ware dryers were tested for dioxins/furans, but none of the tests found detectable levels of dioxins/furans.

### Page 166 of 425 exclusively for refir ing or setting glazes on previously fired products ; ( 2 ) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis) ; and ( 3 ) glazing operations using a flow (curtain) coating or waterfall method
. Re

- fire kilns are used for firing products that have already been fired but have minor defects, which are subsequently repaired. Nearly all of the emissions from the firing of a clay body ( i.e. , fluorides, chlorides) are released during the initial vitrification step c onducted in first

- fire kilns, while re

- fire ware has already been vitrified and emits little to no fluorides or chlorides. Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products also emit little to no HF or HCl for similar reasons
. Glaze spray operations using glaze containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP are expected to be an insignificant source of HAP emissions
. Glaze applied using a flow (curtain) coating or waterfall method rather than using an aerosol spraying met hod would have little to no air emissions of non

- Hg HAP metals
. B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?
For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kil ns , this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits as a

### Page 167 of 425 mass of pollutant emitted per ton of product produced. For non Hg HAP metals emissions from ceramic tile glaz e lines and sanitaryware glaze spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits for
PM as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze sprayed
. For Hg emissions from ceramic tile glaz e lines , this proposed rule includes numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this
pr oposed rule includes numerical emission limits in units of concentration. The selection of numerical emission rate limits and numerical emission limits as the format for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may not be appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of n umerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of product produced ensures that differences in the size or process rate of the affected source do not affect the level of emissions control achieved. The PM limit s are proposed as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals
. T he same control techniques that would be used to

### Page 168 of 425
control PM will control non

- Hg HAP metals
. Particulate matter was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific individual HAP metals because all sourc es do not emit the same type and amount of non - Hg HAP metals due to differences in raw materials and glaze formulations . However, most sources generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of HAP metals
. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the cost of performance testing to comply with numerous standards for individual non

- Hg HAP metals.
For acid gases (HF and HCl), this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes a health

- based emission limit as a mass of HCl

- equivalent em itted per hour . Further discussion about the development of health

- based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is provided in section VI. J of this preamble. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes work practices for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. As described in more detail in section VI. K .1 of this preamble, technological and economic limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shut tle kilns.
C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories? Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories or subcategories of

### Page 169 of 425
sources. Through subcategorization, the EPA may distinguish among classes , types and sizes of sources within a category.
1
. Sanitaryware Kilns Upon initial consideration of the available information on the sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that separate subcategories for sanitaryware periodic (shuttle) kilns and sanitaryware continuous (tunnel) kilns were warranted because shuttle kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly basis and accounting for only a small percentage of production) and are operated in batch cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously.
As noted in section VI. K .1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is techn ologically and economically infeasible to te st shuttle kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in that smaller kilns operated periodic ally ( i.e. , shuttle kilns) would be expected to have lower emissio ns over time compared to the larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns
. 2
. Sanitaryware Glazing We also determined that separate subcategories for three different glaze application methods for sanitaryware were warranted. Manual glaze spraying is done by a human operator

### Page 170 of 425 with one spray gun per station per booth. The ware are moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one to two pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying are the highest of the application methods. Spray machine , or chain

- on - edge , glaze application is done by automatic reciprocating spray guns from a fixed location with 10
to 20 spray guns per booth. The ware are moved and set up on a “chain

- on - edge” conveyor system and glaze is applied to six to

seven pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying are the second highest of the application methods. Robot glaze spraying is done by an automatic robot arm with one spray gun per booth. The ware are moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one piece at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying are the lowest of the application methods.
We also examined subcategorization by manual spraying and

non - manual sprayin g (where “ non - manual spraying ” would include both spray machine and robot glaze spraying ) , but we determined that the design and emission differences between spray machine and robot glaze spraying are significant enough to warrant separate subcategories
.

### Page 171 of 425

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources? As noted in section IV.D of this preamble, a ll standards for new and existing sources established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) must r eflect MACT. The remainder of this section describes the development of the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. As noted in section VI. J of this preamble, health

- based emissio ns standards are being proposed for the acid gases HF and HCl under the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants. In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for

non - Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we separated the data by industry sector, source type and subcategor y as described in section VI.C of this preamble (if applicable) . Within each of those categories or subcategories, we ranked the data in terms of lb/ton fo r PM and Hg and in terms of nano gram s per dry standard cubic meter ( ng/dscm ) at 7 percent O 2 

### for dioxins/furans ( as described in section VI.E of this preamble ). Because there are less than 30 sources in each subcategory, we identified the top five ( best performing ) sources for which we had data. For subcategories with less than five sources, we considered all sources for which we had data as best performing sources. Once

### Page 172 of 425
we identified the best performing sources , we then calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/dscm at 7 percent O 2 

### (as applicable) as described in section VI.E of this preamble
. E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing
sources?
T he EPA must consider available emissions information to determine the MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total

non - Hg HAP metals) and dioxin s /furan s , we calculated the MACT floor for a subcategory of sources by ranking all the available emissions data for units within the subcategory with the best performing sources ranked at the top, as described later in this section and then using the test results from the best performing

sources (up to five) . Therefore, as discussed in section VI.D of this preamble, the MACT floor limits for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for tot al non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans were calculated based on the performance of the best performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s average emission value from lowest to highes t. We then determined the data distribution of the dataset made up of the top five best performers using kurtosis and skewness, as described in section IV.E of this preamble. We assessed variability of the best performers by calculating a UPL using the app ropriate equation based on the data distribution. The UPL

### Page 173 of 425 takes into consideration the average performance of the unit and the variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean of a specified number of future observations ( e.g. , 3

- run average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the results of an independent sample from the same population . It is a standard statisti cal methodology used to account for variability. A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found in the technical memorandu m “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in D ocket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. We also compared the appropriate 3xRDL value to the calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. As described in section IV.E of this preamble, we used the greater of the 3xRDL value and calculated UPL value to ensure that measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability analysis for all existing MACT floors that had BDL or DLL run data present in the best performing datasets (see the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor

### Page 174 of 425 Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290).
As prev iously discussed, we accounted for variability in setting floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best performance over time. We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the emission li mits selected as the MACT floors adequately represent the level of emissions actually achieved by the average of the best performing units, considering operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from units represent ative of the best performers and the variability analysis are reasonably designed to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the best performing five units in a given subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT f loor methodology is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290. Table 1 0 of this preamble presents the average emission level of the best perfo rming sources and the existing source MACT floor. Each subcategory had less than 30 sources nationwide ; thus , the top five sources were used in the MACT floor. If we had data for less than five sources, we used all

### Page 175 of 425

the data available
. The existing source M ACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.
**Table 1**  **0 —**  **Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics**  **Existing Sources a** 



### Subcategory **Parameter Hg**  **b** 

### (lb/ton) **PM b**  **,c** 

### (lb/ton) **Dioxin s**  **/furan s**  **( ng/dscm**  **at 7**

**percent O**  **2** 

### ) Floor tile roller kilns Avg. of best performing sources 7.8 E

- 05 0.0 54 2.9
MACT floor 1. 3 E

- 04 0. 1 8 4.6 Floor tile press dryers Avg. of best performing sources -- -- 0.078
MACT floor

-- -- 0.19 d 

### Floor tile spray dryers Avg. of best performing sources -- -- 0.96
MACT floor

-- -- 44 Wall tile roller kilns Avg. of best performing sources 5.0 E

- 05 0.0 7 1 0.0 65
MACT floor 2.0 E

- 04 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers Avg. of best performing sources -- -- 0.053
MACT floor

-- -- 0.12 d 

### Tile glaze lines Avg. of best performing sources 2.0 E

- 05 0.67

--
MACT floor 1.6 E

- 04 d 

### 1.9

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns Avg. of best performing sources 1.6 E

- 04 0.1 2 0.81
MACT floor 2.6 E

- 04 0. 33 1.5 Sanitaryware manual glaze application Avg. of best performing sources -- 14

--
MACT floor

-- 33

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application Avg. of best performing sources -- 5.9

--
MACT floor

-- 12

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application Avg. of best performing sources -- 4.4

--
MACT floor

-- 8.8

--
a 

### The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise note d
. b 

### Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton glaze sprayed. c 

### PM is a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals. d 

### The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

### Page 176 of 425

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources? The approach t hat we used to calculate the MACT floors for

new sources is described in section IV.F of this preamble . This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as the MA CT floor adequately represents the average level of control actually achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, considering ordinary operational variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 0
. Table 1 1 of this preamble presents , for each subcategory and pollutant , the average emission level of the best perfo rming similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted
. **Table 1 1**  **— Summary of**  **MACT Floor Results for**  **Clay Ceramics New**  **Sources a** 



### Subcategory **Parameter Hg**  **b** 

### (lb/ton) **PM b,c**  

### (lb/ton) **Dioxin s**  **/furan s**  **( ng/dscm**  **at 7**

**percent O**  **2** 

### ) Floor tile roller kilns Avg. of top performer 3.5 E

- 05 0.020 1.1 MACT floor 3.9 E

- 05 0. 0 27 1.5 Floor tile press dryers Avg. of top performer

-- -- 0.070 MACT floor

-- -- 0.19 d 

### Floor tile spray dryers Avg. of top performer

-- -- 0.010 MACT floor

-- -- 0.17 d 

### Wall tile roller kilns Avg. of top performer 5.0 E

- 0 5 0.0 71 0.0 65 MACT floor 2.0 E

- 0 4 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers Avg. of top performer

-- -- 0.053 MACT floor

-- -- 0.12 d

### Page 177 of 425

**Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  

### (lb/ton) **PM b,c**  

### (lb/ton) **Dioxin s**  **/furan s**  **( ng/dscm**  **at 7**

**percent O**  **2** 

### ) Tile glaze lines Avg. of top performer 7.4 E

- 06 0.15

-- MACT floor 1.6 E

- 04 d 

### 0.61

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns Avg. of top performer 6.4 E

- 05 0.092 0.23 MACT floor 1.2 E

- 04 0.095 0.37 Sanitaryware manual glaze application Avg. of top performer

-- 3.3

-- MACT floor

-- 3.8

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application Avg. of top performer

-- 2.0

--
MACT floor

-- 3.2

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application Avg. of top performer

-- 1.3

-- MACT floor

-- 2.2

--

a 

### The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b 

### Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced ; for glazing are lb/ ton glaze sprayed.
c 

### PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals
. d 

### The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value
.



### G. W hat is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets? As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the re are specific considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the clay ceramics source category, we have limited dat asets for the following pollutants and subcategories:

• Hg, PM, and d ioxins/furans for new floor tile roller kilns;
• d ioxins/furans for new floor tile press dryers;
• d ioxins/furans for new floor tile spray dryers;
• Hg and d ioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile roller kilns;
• d ioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile spray dryers;
• Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines;
• Hg, PM, and d ioxins/furans for new sanitaryware tunnel kilns; and

### Page 178 of 425

• PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray machine, a nd robot glaze spray booths. For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the memorandum titled “Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets,” which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ; see that memorandum fo r more information on the analysis and the results.
H
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing
sources? As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D of this preamble, the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements that are more stringent than the MACT floor ( i.e. , beyond

- the

floor control options). When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs,
energy and non - air qual ity health and environmental impacts when doing so. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control ( e.g. , the performance of technologies t hat could result in lower emissions) for the different subcategories.
We considered requiring each subcategory of existing sources to meet the new source MACT floors developed as described in section VI.F of this preamble. We analyzed the

### Page 179 of 425
beyond

- the

- floor options for each pollutant separately for each subcategory of existing sources. Our analyses are documented in the technical memorandum “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP ” in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 and summarized in the following paragraphs
. For Hg from existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns, based on the data available, we estimate that all existing tunnel kilns could meet the new source MACT floor emission limits described in section VI.F of this pream ble without incurring additional emission control costs
. Therefore, we are proposing a beyond

the

- floor Hg limit for existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns equivalent to the new source MACT floor
. For several sources and pollutants, the existing source MACT fl oor and the new source MACT floor are the same value, usually because there is only one source with data in the subcategory or because both floors are based on the 3xRDL value. These sources/pollutants include dioxins/furans from floor tile press dryers, P M (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals) , Hg and dioxins/furans from wall tile roller kilns, dioxins/furans from wall tile spray dryers and Hg from ceramic tile glaze lines
. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond

- the

floor limits for these sources and pollutants
. The incremental costs, emission reductions and cost effectiveness for all other beyond

- the

- floor options are

### Page 180 of 425 summarized by subcategory and by pollutant in Table 1 2 of this preamble. In all these cases, we have concluded that the incremental costs of additional control above the MACT floor emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of emission reduction achieved. Therefore, we are not proposing to go beyond

- the

- floor for any of the subcategory/pollutant concentrations included i n Table 1 2 of this preamble.
**Table 1 2**  **- Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions**  **and Cost**  **Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond -**  **the -**  **Floor Options**  **(2011 dollars)**

**Subcategory Pollutant**  **Cost ( million**  **) Incremental**  **HAP Emissions**  **Reductions (tpy)**  **Cost Effe ctiveness**  **($/ton total HAP) Capital**  **Annual** Floor tile roller kilns Hg $4.14 $3.16 0.044 $71,800,000 Total non

Hg HAP metals $10.8 $4.28 0.73 $ 5,83 0,000

Dioxins/

furans $2.32 $1.77 8.5 E

- 07 $ 2,08 0,000 ,000,000
Floor tile spray dryers Dioxins/ furans $0.335 $0.278 4.6 E

- 08 $5,990,000,000,000 Tile glaze lines Total non

Hg HAP metals $7.67 $2.70 0.038 $70,600,000

First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns Total non

Hg HAP metals $3.91 $2.01 0.020 $102,000,000

Dioxins/

furans $2.98 $1.78 3.4 E

- 08 $ 51,700 ,000,000 ,00 0 Sanitaryware manual glaze application Total non

Hg HAP metals $6.78 $2.19 0.24 $9,090,000

Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application Total non

Hg HAP metals $1.89 $0.900 0.14 $6,420,000

Sanitaryware robot glaze application Total non Hg HAP metals $4.97 $2.22 0.097 $23,000,000

### Page 181 of 425

I
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? The MACT floor level of control for each subcategory of new sources for each pollutant was based on the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source within each of the subcategories. When we establish a beyond

- the

- floor standard, we typically identify control techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new source floors for any of the subcategories for each pollutant . Therefore , the EPA is not proposing a beyond

- the

floor limit for any of the new sources in this proposed Cl ay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. J
. How did the EPA determine whether to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , we considered whether it was appropriate to establish health

- based emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases HF and HCl. The rationale for the development of health

- based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the same as that presen ted for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , with a few exceptions, which are discussed in the sections below. The rationale for the

### Page 182 of 425
development of health

- based standards for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is discussed in section IV. J of this preamb le. 1. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? Section IV. J of this preamble discusses the following factors that the EPA considers in making a judgment whether to set a standard base d on the health threshold or the traditional MACT process:

• The availability of data to set the health

- based standard ;
• Co

- benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutants;
• The pot ential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the pollutant; and
• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other source categories, w here the concentration of the threshold pollutant emitted from the given source category is below the threshold
. The evaluation of the first three factors (availability of data , co - benefits and potential ecosystem impacts) are nearly identical for both the BSCP and c lay c eramics industries. However, further analysis was required concerning the last factor (potential for cumulative adverse health effects ). The evaluation of all four factors for the c lay c eramics industry is provided below.

### Page 183 of 425

a. Availability of Data to Determine Standard Like the BSCP manufacturing rule , because of the relatively small number of facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility

specific information for the Clay Ceramic s manufacturing rule , including tunnel and roller kiln locations and operating characteristics and stack parameters, available for all clay ceramics facilities to assess the feasibility of health

- based standards in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling necessary to establish a health

- based emission limit for acid
gases. 55 

### Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough information to determine the health

- based emission standards for the acid gases HF and HCl for the c lay c eramics industry. As discussed in further detail below, these limits have been developed to ensure that exposure is below the health threshold for each facility and also ensure that acute exposures will not
pose any health concerns. 56

55 

### For more information, see the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. 56 

### See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 ( September 9, 2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short

- term emissions of HCl from cem ent kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic health

- based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health concerns.”)

### Page 184 of 425

b. Co

- benefits The additional nationwide SO 2 

### reductions that would be attributable to Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid gases are estimated to be 31 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the proposed standards. Similar to B SCP, this reduction is substantially lower than the co

- benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a health

- based limit, 57 

### and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit in the circumstances here
.
c. Ecosystem Impacts For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the acid gases HCl and HF around each c lay c eramics facility. For

57 

### See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970 ( September 9, 2010)

– Co

- benefits w as identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule . 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a health

based standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO 2 

### and other HAP gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO 2 

### alone attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons per year” and discussing both direct SO 2 

### effects and effects of SO 2 

### as a precu rsor to PM 2.5 

### ) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl 2 

### ), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health im pacts must be taken into account when considering a health

- based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT Final Rule , 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this issue and continues to believe that the co

- benefits are significant a nd provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010)

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 340,000 tons per year of SO 2 

### and unspecified reductions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule , 76 FR 24976, 25051/1

– Co

- benefits from MACT standa rd for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO 2 

### and unspecified reductions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and mercury.

### Page 185 of 425
HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area

weighted average modeled co ncentrations of HCl around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite recept or location for any facility.
For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the

area - weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no greater than one percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects. d. Cumulative Effects As noted previously, the EPA may consider the availability of information on emissions from co

- located and nearby sources and consider if it is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects from emissions from the sources in the category when combined with other emissions from other sources that are co - located or located nearby . Relevant emissions may

### Page 186 of 425 include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects. Through industry responses to the clay ceramics 2008 EPA
survey and the 2010 EPA survey , we have subst antial information on the locations of clay ceramics plants and the levels of HF and HCl emitted from those plants. While the major source ceramic tile plants are not co

- located with any other type of operation, the three major source sanitaryware plants a re. However, the sources co

- located with the sanitaryware plants do not emit acid gases. The metal foundry plant co

- located with the sanitaryware plant in Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly particulates and metals, while the fiberglass plants co

- located with the sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, South Carolina and Brownwood, Texas emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). Consequently, any acid gas emissions from co

- located sources are not expected to impact the total facility acid gas emissions significantly. Lik e BSCP facilities, clay ceramics facilities are typically located on large tracts of land needed for all of the processes involved in clay ceramics manufacturing, including raw material receiving, storage and processing; glaze preparation; forming; drying; glazing; firing; product inspection; and packaging . This provides an additional buffer between the clay ceramics plants and the surrounding area. Because of the

### Page 187 of 425 relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from the clay ceramics plants are located close to the facility property line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non - clay ceramics emissions, the location and emissions associated with other sources not in the clay ceramics source category are far less certain. While the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey data for clay ceramics facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of nearby other facilities such as those in the NEI have not undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions may contain significant of uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because of the large footprint of clay ceramic facilities and the clay ceramics risks being confined to the near plant locations, we do not expec t that the combined emissions of HF or HCl from clay ceramics facilities and nearby other sources would result in substantial cumulative health and environmental effects.
2
. How did the EPA set the level of the standard ? As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing to exercise its discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the authority in CAA section 112 (d)(4) for acid gases, because the circumstances in this case differ from those previous

### Page 188 of 425
considerations. We request comment on the analysis and conclusions regarding setting health

- based standards. Following from the EPA’s determination that a health

- based standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health effects on which the threshold is based.
• There must be no observable adverse effect.
• The standard must not allow greater adverse envi ronmental effects as the MACT standard that would otherwise be established.
• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions do not pose a health risk. As part of the development of the propo sed standards , we have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, including the size and operating hours of each tunnel and roller kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes ( e.g. , stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each kiln stack. To develop a health

- based emission limit, both long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category were estimated using the HEM

- 3 model as described in section IV. J .3 of this preamble. Further information on the overall modeling approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.

### Page 189 of 425 In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby cen sus block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio
. Because we performed HEM

- 3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at clay ceramics facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HCl

- equivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not exceeded , as long as the HCl

- equivalent emissions do not exceed 600 tpy. It is important to note that this emission limit is only applicable to the sources in this source category and shou ld not be considered for sources other than those included in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for HF are determined by the ratio of the chronic RfC to that for HCl, such that the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF are 420 tpy. Because the emissions equiva lency was based on chronic dose

- response values, the 600 tpy level does not necessarily ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ

### Page 190 of 425 values exceeding 1 . For HF, we estimat e that two of the eight facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL with the highest being two. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL

- 1) value for HF. To assure that no source e mits more than the 600 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour , we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy ( 140 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent emissions )
. It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds are developed from back

- calculating the emissions that would result in an HQ of 1 at the worst

- case facility. Potential risks at other facilities (not the worst

- case facility) are predicted to be well below 1.
Because we had site

- specific data on the operation of each tunnel and roller kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling
to ensure that : (1) the health

- based emission limit cited above for clay ceramics facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is ba sed. In addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions associated with clay ceramics kilns, based on results from the EPA’s environmental risk screen methodology outlined above , are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact.
Fa cilities would demonstrate compliance with the health

based emission limit by determining their facility

- wide HCl and

### Page 191 of 425 HF emissions, calculating the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HCl

equivalent value to calculate the total HCl

- equivalent emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . For more information on the development of the health

- based standard , see the technical memorandum “ Risk As sessment to Determine a Health

Based Emissions Limit ation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290. For more information on the calculation of an HCl

equivalent value, see the technical memorandum “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics
NESHAP ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.
K
. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns is not feasible because the application of measurement methodology to these sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Therefore, t he EPA is proposing a work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns in lieu of emission limits for acid

### Page 19 2 of 425
gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non - Hg HAP metals . The rationale for th is work practice standard is discussed in the paragraphs below. 1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice St andard in Lieu of Emission Standards

a. Overview Shuttle kilns at sanitaryware facilities are a type of periodic kiln used primarily to refire rejected pieces that have been machined and reglazed (although some shuttle kilns are used as first

- fire units)
. Shuttle kilns are designed with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. The main advantage of this type of kiln is that i t can readily accommodate changes in firing temperature profile and cy cle time to match the requirements of a wide variety of ceramic products. The primary disadvantage of this type of kiln is much higher energy costs per ton when compared to tunnel kilns and roller kilns. 58


### Shuttle kilns are batch operated, meaning that a ba tch starts cold and ends cold. The sanitaryware industry operates shuttle kilns on batch cycle times of 18 to 38 hours, with the most common cycle times between 22 and 30 hours. As shuttle

58 

### See the memorandum titled “Characterization of the Ceramic Manufacturing Industry” in the original Clay Ceramics NESHAP docket, incorporated by reference into the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.

### Page 193 of 425 kilns operate through a heating cycle, temperatures are eithe r in r amp - up or cool

- down mode. 59


### b. Emissions and Testing
E mission rates can vary over the batch cycle due to the temperature cycle of the kiln. In order to accurately determine the total emissions from a shuttle kiln cycle , emissions from the entire cycle period would need to be tested. 60 

### As with testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing sanitaryware shuttle kilns for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are either higher or lower than actual emissions, dependin g on when during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled. 61


### C onducting a shuttle kiln test on even the shortest cycle time would require a test crew to be on site for at least 24 hours and would require the test team to have at least a dozen or more sampli ng train set

- ups or additional manpower on site to recover samples and turn

- around sampling trains for subsequent use during the test. It is estimated that the test of a single shuttle kiln firing cycl e with analysis would cost $20,000 or

more (2009 dollar s)
. As with BSCP periodic kilns, sampling a single firing cycle might not be adequate for characterizing

59 

### See the email titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle ki lns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,” in the docket for this proposed rule. 60 

### Id. 61 

### See the memorandum entitled “ Rationale for Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.

### Page 194 of 425 shuttle kiln emissions, due to variations during firing cycles and variations across tests. To collect three test runs of data,
t wo additional cycles w ould need to be tested, bringing the cost to $60,000 or more (2009 dollars) to test a single shuttle kiln. Furthermore, the sanitaryware facilities covered under this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule have three or more shuttle kilns each , requirin g additional tests at each facility. 62



### c. Test Methods and Costs As noted in section VI. K .1 .a of this preamble , when EPA Method 26 or 26A is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur if emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns. Testing of sanitaryware shuttle kilns could encounter a similar problem. Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout shuttle kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover samples. 63


### An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320 , where HCl breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides

62 

### See the sanitaryware industry communication titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290. 63 

### See the RTI memorandum titled “ Rationale for Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.

### Page 195 of 425

near real

- time emissions data . However , the cost for FTIR testing would be similarly expensive as testing by Method 26 or 26A throughout an entire cycle. T he cost for testing by FTIR is estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50

- hour kiln cycle (the average cycle time for a BSCP periodic kiln)
. Assuming a 50 percent reduction in cost for an average 25

- hour sanitaryware shuttle kiln cycle, the cos t to test one cycle would still be substantial (nearly $25,000 (2009 dollars) ). If it were determined that the variations in emissions from cycle to cycle were significant, it might be nece ssary to test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the testing cost to almost $ 5 0,000 and t esting for a third cycle would triple the cost to almost $75,000 (2009 dollars)
. In addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurre d for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be tested using a manual test method ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5 or 17). If additional shuttle kilns needed to be test ed at each facility , the costs would be even higher. 64 

### While no formal cost

- to

- sales analysis was conducted for sanitaryware shuttle kilns like the one conducted for BSCP periodic kilns (see section IV. K .1 of this preamble ), a similar

64 

### Id.

### Page 196 of 425 informal analysis was performed using the sales and production data provided in the 2008 EPA survey respo nses (claimed as CBI by the respondent). Based on this analysis, a similar conclusion (that testing is not economically feasible) can be reached
. B ecause the test costs are similar and shuttle kilns represent a small share of total sanitaryware production and revenues, the EPA has concluded that it would not be economically feasible to require testing for shuttle kilns
. d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Shuttle Kilns CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2 )(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this context to apply when “the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.”
Because of the technological and econo mic limitations described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to establish numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for shuttle kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures that are economically infeasible for the sanitaryware

### Page 197 of 425 industry. Consequently, we are proposing a work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns under CAA section 112(h). 2
. Work Practice Standard The work practice standard for sanitarywa re shuttle kilns proposed in today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes
t he following specific provisions: 65



### • Each facility would have to u se natural gas or equivalent as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interr uption.
• Each facility would have to d evelop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle kiln, by programming the time and temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on a log sheet.
• Each facility would have to l abel each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle.
• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the max imum load and each facility would have to document the total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.
• Each facility would have to d evelop and implement maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following items: o Calibration of temperature measuring devices o Controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios o Controls that regulate firing cycles
• Each facility would have to d evelop and maint ain records required for each shu ttle kiln, including logs to document the proper operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the standard.

65 

### See the BSCP industry communication titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rule making.

### Page 198 of 425

L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements?
As stated in section V.E of this preamble , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns
. We are not proposing alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths
. As noted in section V.B of this preamble, roller and tunnel kilns and dryers typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel kiln involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the kiln to the proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics . Shutdown of a roller or tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. Similarly, startup and shutdown of a dryer is the process of raising the temperature to the proper operational temperature or lowering the temperature from t he proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. When the temperature of the kiln or dryer is below the proper operational temperature, ceramic tile and sanitaryware manufacturers typically do not push ceramics into the kiln, so

### Page 199 of 425
the emiss ions are expected to be much lower during startup and shutdown than during normal operations. While a kiln or dryer is heating to the proper operational temperature during startup or cooling from the operational temperature during shutdown, other parameter s such as exhaust flow rate, moisture content, O 2 

### concentration and pressure are also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown progresses, as the kiln or dryer does not heat or c ool evenly. The fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the relatively steady

- state conditions needed for valid, accurate results over three test runs using the measurement methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, the emission limit formats chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are not appropriate for use during periods other than normal operation. Specifically, if there is no throughout in the kiln or dryer, emission limits that are in a mass per throughput format would be essentially meaningless. We did not receive any detailed information through the 2010 EPA survey about the startup or shutdown of ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press d ryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns. However, ceramic tile roller kilns

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns are fired at similar or slightly

### Page 200 of 425 higher temperatures to BSCP tunnel kilns and they would likely use similar APCD to comply with t he standards. Therefore, we expect that the issues described in section IV.E of this preamble associated with venting low

- temperature kiln exhaust through an APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also apply to an
APCD on a ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile p ress dryer , ceramic tile spray dryer or sanitaryw are tunnel kiln . We also expect that the low temperature set points would be about the same as for BSCP tunnel kilns, as those temperatures are based on the tolerance of the APCD. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required t o vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reache s 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no cer amics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer once the

### Page 201 of 425
kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. W hen the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the

owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section V.G of this preamble.
For ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can meet the proposed standards without an APCD, there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kiln s. However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns or

sa nitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be put into the kiln or dry er once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. When there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the

### Page 202 of 425
emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble )
. We are not proposing alternate standards (either work practice standards or an alternate numeric emission limit) for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected to comply wi th the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown. We did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey suggesting that alternate standards for p eriods of startup and shutdown are needed for these sources. Glazing operations are intermittent in nature during normal operations, so emissions during startup and shutdown would not be expected to be different than emissions during normal operations.
M
. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements ? We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the requirements of this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. These requirements are descr ibed in detail in sections V. F and
V. G of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary to ensure that the emission standards are being met and the work practices are being followed and that APCD an d equipment are maintained and

### Page 203 of 425
operated properly. Further, t hese proposed requirements ensure compliance with this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule without imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them. We are pr oposing that initial compliance with the emission limits for HF , HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would also require 5

- year repeat performance tests to ensure, on a n ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating properly and that its performance has not deteriorated. The majority of test methods that this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require for the performance stack tests ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the proposed emission limits are based were conducted using these test methods. When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that parameter operating l imits be determined during the test. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require continuous parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these parameters withi n the operating limits established during the performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring requirements because they produce data that

### Page 204 of 425
will be useful to both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emissi on limits and/or operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution
. The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the clay ceramics industry or anticipated to be us ed to comply with the proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; activa ted carbon flow rate for ACI systems; periodic inspections for water curtains; and annual inspections for baffles. If applicable for demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl standard, t he kiln monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics

man ufacturing rule is the kiln process rate. To demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan standard for those affected sources without an ACI system, the monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the operating tempera ture for the affected process (tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer), because the formation and destruction of dioxins/furans are influenced by temperature conditions. Many of these CPMS are standard features on ceramic t ile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel

### Page 205 of 425
kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other standards for similar industries.
In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for k ilns equipped with a FF ( e.g. , a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand

- alone FF) to either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other standards in similar industries. We have also determined that periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . Periodic VE checks have also been propose d for affected sources without an add

- on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.
N
. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which affected sources must comply with the emission s tandards. Under CAA section 112(i)(1), n ew or reconstructed units must be in compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final rule , whichever is later. ( Th e final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defi ned by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register
. )

### Page 206 of 425

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), e xisting sources are allowed up to 3 years after the effective date of the ru le to comply with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, install and test any control systems that may need to be retrofitted onto existing sources, as well as obtain permits for the use of add

- on controls. The compliance data for e xisting area sources that subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from the date they become major sources to come into compliance , which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing sources discussed in the previous paragraph
. Further, under the current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source become s a major source by the addition of equipment or
oper ations that meet the definition of new affected source under this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.
O
. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the pr oposed rule? We are proposing that owner/operators would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 9 of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . We eval uated

### Page 207 of 425 the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of, this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. We are also pro posing that the owner or operator keep records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the amount of product fired in the shuttle kiln, to address the operational factors that impact HAP emissions from shuttle kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard for shuttle kilns (discussed further in section VI. K .1 of this prea mble).
In addition, w e are proposing that the owner or operator keep records and submit a report of each malfunction and the corrective action taken as part of the next semiannual compliance report . The proposed compliance report would provide information on each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for electronic reporting of performanc e test data, which is discussed further in section III .I of this preamble.

### Page 208 of 425 We request comment on ways that we could streamline the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule by relying on existing business
pra ctices.
P
. How does the proposed rule affect permits? The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit issued under an EPA

- approved State operating permit program. The operatin g permit programs are developed under title V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . If the facility is in the last 2 years of an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to incorporate the requirements of this Clay Cera mics manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the permit.
**VII . Summary of the Environmental, Energy**  **and Economic Impacts**  **of the Proposed**  **Standards**
A. What are the cost and emission s reduction impacts? Table 1 3 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions reductions for existing sources under the BSCP manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule.

### Page 209 of 425

**Table 1**  **3 -**  **Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP**  **and Clay Ceramics**  **Existing Sources a**  

### (2011 dollars)

**Industry Cost (**  **million )**  **Emissions reductions (tpy)**

**Capital Annual**  **HF HCl**  **Cl 2**  

### Non **- Hg**  **HAP metals**  **b** 

### Hg **PM PM**  **2.5** 

### SO **2** 

### BSCP $ 5 5 .9 $ 19.0 410 24. 0 2.09 3
. 79 0.0 590 35 9 17 2 255 Clay Ceramics $0. 1 02 $0.0 458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 

### Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring. b 

### Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.
c 

### PM 2.5 

### = particulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
.


### The nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule are expected to total $5 5 .9 million and $1 9.0 million, respectively (2011 dollars) . The nationwi de HAP emissions reductions achieved under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule are expected t o total 4 40 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented in the technical memorand a titled “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP ” and “ Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the BSCP NESHAP ” in
D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, these facilities will incur monitoring and testing costs to

### Page 210 of 425 demonstrate compliance with the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. These costs are documente d in the technical memorandum titled “ Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The five facilities that were major source s at the t ime of the 2008 and 2010 EPA survey s have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area sources
. Consequently , none of the known tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , which means that no costs or emissions reductions are expected for tile affected sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. We request comment on whether we need to finalize the standards for ceramic tile manufacturing even though there currently are no maj or

sources . B. What are the secondary impacts? Table 1 4 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for existing sources under the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed rule.
**Table 1**  **4 —**  **Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics**  **Existing Sources**  **a**



### Control option **Secondary air**  **emissions (tpy) Energy**  **impacts (MMBtu/yr)**  **Solid waste**  **impacts**

**(tpy) PM**  **PM 2.5**  

### CO **NO X**  

### SO **2** 

### BSCP 1. 93 0. 646 3. 60 2 8.0 81.7 2 68 ,000 8,630

### Page 211 of 425

Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a 

### PM 2.5 

### = pa rticulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ; CO = carbon monoxide ; NO X 

### = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year .


### The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the
BSCP manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule i nclude s secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to meet the proposed limits ( i.e. , increased

sec ondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the
APCD and solid waste impacts consist of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste (not reused or recycled). Under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , the n ationwide secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, carbon monoxide ( CO ) , nitrogen oxides ( NO X 

### ) and SO 2 

### are expected to total 1 15 tpy , with energy impacts of 2 68 ,000 million British thermal units per year ( MM Btu/yr ) and solid waste impacts of 8,630 tpy
. T he methodology used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented in the technical memorandum “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP ” in D ocket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
.

### Page 212 of 425 As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the propose d Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , so there are no secondary impacts expected for these

sources. There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The f ive facilities that were major source s at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA survey s have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area sources . Consequently, none of the known ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , which means that no secondary impacts are expected for cera mic tile affected sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. C. What are the economic impacts? For the BSCP Manufacturing source category , t he average national brick price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4 percent or $3.29 per 1,000 S tandard Brick Equivalent (S BE ) (2011 dollars) , while overall domestic production falls by 1.1 percent or 38 million bricks per year. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at sign ificant risk of closure. Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for BSCP Manufacturing , the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the BSCP manufacturing rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of sma ll entities . As

### Page 213 of 425
a result, the EPA initiated a SBAR P anel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
For c lay c eramics m anufacturing , one s anitary w are company

owns major sources and will incur costs. That affected company is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 0.001 percent of sales for the affected company . Hence, the economic impact for compliance is minimal. Because no small firms face significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small entit ies. Thus , the proposed Clay Ceramics regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
. For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses , please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA ) for th e BSCP manufacturing rule , “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is available in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. D. What are the social costs and benefits? Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, NO X 

### and SO 2 

### . SO 2 

### and NO X 

### are precursors to PM 2.5 

### ( particulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ) and Nox is a precursor to ozone. The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co

- benefits for this proposed

### Page 214 of 425
rule. For this proposed rule, we were only able to quantify the health co

- benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM 2.5 

### from emission reductions of SO 2 

### and directly emitted PM 2.5 

### because of methodological limitations associated with quantifying and monetizing HAP benefits . We estimate the monetized c o - benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3

- percent discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7

- percent discount rate. Using alternate relationships between PM 2.5 

### and premature mortality supplied by exper ts, higher and lower co

- benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these two estimates. 66 

### A summary of the emission reduction and monetized co

- benefits estimates for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule at discoun t rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 1 5 of this preamble.
**Table 1**  **5 -**  **Summary of the Monetized PM 2.5**  

### Co **- Benefits for Brick**  **and Structural Clay**  **Products Manufacturing NESHAP for in 2018**  **(millions of 2011 dollars) a,b** 



### Pollutant **Emission reductions (**  **tpy )**  **Total monetized co**   ** benefits** **(3 percent Discount)**  **Total monetized co**   ** benefits** **(7 percent Discount)**  Directly emitted PM 2.5 

### 170 45 to 100 4 1 to 92
PM 2.5 

### precursors SO 2 

### 173 7 to 16 6 to 14

a 

### All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant

66 

### Roman, et al., 2008. “ Expert Judgmen t Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S., ” Environ. Sci. Technol. , 42, 7, 2268

– 2274.

### Page 215 of 425
figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co

- benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 

### through reductions of PM 2.5 

### precursors, such as SO 2 

### and directly emitted PM 2.5 

### . It is important to note that the monetized co

- benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide ( NO 2 

### ) , exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. b 

### PM c o - benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.



### These co

- benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM 2.5 

### from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this proposed rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this proposed rule. Instead, we used a “benefit

- per - ton” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit

- p er - ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of
PM 2.5 

### precursors into changes in ambient PM 2.5 

### levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the

e missions in specific sectors. These benefit

- per - ton estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. (2012) , 67 

### but they have since been updated to reflect the studies and population data in the 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality

67 

### Fann, N., K.R. Baker and C.M. Fulcher. 2012 . “Characterizing the PM 2.5 

### - related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S.” Environment International 49 41

– 151.

### Page 216 of 425

Standard s ( NAA QS ) RIA. 68 

### Specifically, we multiplied the benefit

per - ton estimates from the “ Non

- EGU Point other” category by the corresponding emission reductions. 69 

### All national

- average benefit

- per - ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions in this rulemaking and thus , they may not reflect the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit

- per - ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support document, which is available in D ocket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differe ntiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

- per - ton estimates

68 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revi sions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf
. 69 

### U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM 2.5 

### precursors from 17 sectors
. Research Triangle Park, NC. January.

### Page 217 of 425 vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 

### levels, whi ch drive population exposure. It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 2.5 

### co benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study 70 

### and the extended Six Cities cohort study. 71 

### In the RIA for this rule, which is available in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 , we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman et al., 2008) as a characterization of unce rtainty regarding the PM 2.5 

### - mortality relationship. Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter 72 

### do cuments the association between elevated
PM 2.5 

### concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board,

70 

### Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito and G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality and Long

term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132

- 1141
. 71 

### Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow

- Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.” Environ Health Perspect. Jul y ;120(7):965

- 70
. 72 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) . EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

– RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at < http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?d eid=216546 >.

### Page 218 of 425
concluded that the scientific lite rature consistently finds that

a no - threshold model most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

- response relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine particles is without a threshold. In ge neral, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 

### concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 

### concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses ( e.g. , lowest measured level ( LML ) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study) a llow readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual
mean PM 2.5 

### levels at or above different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of unc ertainty in the estimated PM 2.5 

### mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements.

### Page 219 of 425 For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data are not available due to time or r esource limitations and thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each
PM 2.5 

### level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the popula tion exposed at each PM 2.5 

### level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefit

- per - ton estimates for this sector. Using the Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 

### levels at or abov e the LML of 5.8 μg/m 3 

### . Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/m 3 

### . It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incide nce rates population and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules that had air quality modeling. Every benefit analysis examin ing the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the

### Page 220 of 425 benefit analysis for this proposed rule provides a reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does no t include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS RIA 73 

### because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this
propose d rule and using a benefit

- per - ton approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2012 PM 2.5 

### NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions.
It should be noted t hat the monetized co

- benefits estimates provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NO X 

### and ozone exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment . Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for this proposed rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for the rule
. The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are anticipated to have minor secondary impacts , including an

73 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, H ealth and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf
.

### Page 221 of 425
increase of 28 tons of NO X 

### , less than 2 tons of PM, 3 tons of CO and 82 tons of SO 2 

### each year. Given the insignificant increase , only secondary effects of PM and SO 2 

### were inclu ded in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rule, “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, ” which is available in D ocket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. **VIII . Public Participation**  **and Request for Comment** We request comment on all aspects of th e proposed rule for
BSCP M anufacturing and Clay C eramics M anufacturing , including any alternate approaches that the EPA is considering (see section IV. Q of this preamble for further discussion on these approaches )
. During this rulemaking, we conducted outreach to small entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small entities that potential ly would be subject to the requirements of th e proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. (Note: We did not convene a SBAR Panel for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule because none of the major source facilities subject to the proposed Clay Ceramics manu facturing rule are owned by a small entit y .) As part of the SBAR Panel process , we conducted outreach with representatives from various small entities that would be

### Page 222 of 425
affected by th e proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . We met with these small entity representa tives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the BSCP manufacturing rule making on their industries/sectors. We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP manufacturing rule making, possible regulatory approaches, preliminary cost and economic impacts and possible rulemaking alternatives. We met with SERs from the BSCP industry that will be impacted directly by the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet. The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting in response to discussions at the meeting and the questions posed to the SERs by the agency . The SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the BSCP manufacturing rule ’s impact on small businesses. A copy of the final Panel report is available in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291.

### Page 223 of 425

**I X**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving R egulation and Regulatory Review Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a n “ economically significant regulatory action ” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
. ” Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order s 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket s for this action. In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action . This analysis is contained in “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP
. ” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ) and the analysis is briefly summarized here
. The EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur total annualized costs of $21 million (2011 dollars) under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , including costs of emission controls, testing and monit oring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have

### Page 224 of 425 testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs for the alternate approach are estimated to be $31 million (2011 dollars) . The EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. T he EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the proposed standards
. Under the alternate approach , t he EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the proposed rule , as described in section VII of this preamble. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5 

### reduced by this rule. Data, resource and methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the benefits from s everal important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAP each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAP each year through the alternate standards , as well as ecosystem effec ts and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 

### , this rule would reduce several non

- Hg HAP metals emissions ( i.e. , antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, ni ckel and selenium) each year. The EPA estimate s the total monetized

### Page 225 of 425

co - benefits to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3 percent discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7 percent discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the proposed standards
. Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will exceed the costs. The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP . Only two firms are estimated to incur costs as a result of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule and they only incur costs associated with test ing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total annualized cost s are only $55,900 (2011 dollars) and both firms’ estimated costs of complying with the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are less than 0.001 percent of their sales. B. Paperwork Re duction Act The information collection requirements in the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
. The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP Manufacturin g NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01 . The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR

### Page 226 of 425

number 2510.01
. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 1 14 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, t he proposed rule include s paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5

- year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of perf ormance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction
. There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. F or these 67 facilities, t he annual

### Page 227 of 425 recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with th e proposed BSCP standards ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,0 63 labor hours per year , at a cost of $ 79 6, 255 /yr. N o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $ 983 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (av eraged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 103 hours per year , at a total labor cost of $5,329 per
year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule that we are proposing . For these three facilities, t he annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to total 674 labor hours per year at a cost of $35,653 /yr. As with the BSCP standards, n o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping o r reporting are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first

### Page 228 of 425 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is es timated to be 4.6 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $239 per
year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden ( e.g. , performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report, records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs o f $350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours
per year, at a total labor cost of $20 7,946 per year. (All costs are in 20 11 dollars.) For the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1,448 labor hours per year, at a cost of $76,519 /yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of

### Page 229 of 425
$27,368 /yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $21,101 /yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $48,469 /yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 hours per year, at a total la bor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the a gency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public d ocket for each rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 (for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EP A and OMB. See the **ADDRESSES** section at the beginning of this action for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 205 03, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required

### Page 230 of 425 to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after **[ insert date of publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  , a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receive s it by **[ insert date 30 days after the date of**  **publication in the Federal Register ]**  . The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulato ry Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies tha t the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school dis trict or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not

- for

profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and

### Page 231 of 425
is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the proposed BSCP NES HAP are small businesses that own BSCP manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120 ) industry and the SBA (2013 ) defines a small business in this industry as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 parent companies that are small businesses. Small entities affected by the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP are small busines ses that own clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies of ceramic tile facilities fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120 ) industry and affected parent companies of sani taryware facilities fall under the Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 327110) industry. However, we have determined that no small entities would be subject to the clay ceramics proposed standards. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an
IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is included in Section 5 of the RIA a nd is available for review in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1) and is summarized below.

### Page 232 of 425

1 . Need for the R ule The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission standards for each categ ory or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator ’ s judgment, the p ollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP source category are being proposed. 2 . Objectives and Le gal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the aver age emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “beyond

- the

- floor” control options.

### Page 233 of 425

W hen considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed to comply wit h CAA section 112(d). 3
. Affected S mall E ntities Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost

- to

- sales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate approach , two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
4 . Report ing , R ecordkeeping, and O ther C ompliance R equirements Respondents would be required to provide one

- time and periodic notifications, including initial notification, notification of performance tests, and notification of compliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the EPA’s ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentat ion supporting

### Page 234 of 425 information included in these notifications and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources and APCD at the facility.
5 . Related Federal Rules The EPA determined that there are no related federal rules f or this source category. 6 . Significant Alternatives The EPA has included provisions in the proposed rule where possible to minimize the burden on all affected entities, including small entities
. As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by Sma ll Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA ) , the EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the pro posed BSCP manufacturing rule ’s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the materials that the SERs received for the pre

Panel outreach, the SERs were provided with background information to help them prepare for the teleconference and prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small

- entity comments on

### Page 235 of 425
issues rela ted to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1)
. The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses complying wit h the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent feasible, as described below:

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take comment on the feasibility of work practice standard s for Hg and other metals. The discussion of work practices for Hg and other metals should clearly identify any areas where the agency believes that the data do not support work practices to allow for meaningful comments and also discuss work practice alte rnatives with sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an alternative in the final BSCP manufacturing rule
. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg and for non - Hg HAP metals, the EPA is specifically requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work practice standards for non

- Hg HAP metals and for Hg are appropriate.

• The panel recommended that the EPA co

- propose both a health

- based limit and MACT limi ts for acid gases unless

### Page 236 of 425

the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to propose a numerical health

- based limit. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing a health

- based emission limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels and other factors. Proposed rule : The EPA evaluated the data to determine if subcategories of sources were supported, including subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg in two subcategories based on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion for all pollutants, including total non

- Hg HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits for PM or total non

- Hg H AP metals for all tunnel kilns. The ability to c ompl y with the equivalent lb/hr total non

- Hg HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions.

### Page 237 of 425

• The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust dryers would affect emissions and control costs. Proposed rule : The proposed rule requests comment on whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired with saw dust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice standards for startup and shutdown. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns.

• The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can establish that the data available to the agency represent the best

- performing sources consistent with section 112 of the CAA and relevant case law.
Pro posed rule : The test data for PM (the surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals) showed that kilns controlled with

a FF

- based APCD ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the industry are controlled with a FF

- based APCD. Therefore, the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the best

- performing sources with a
FF

- based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish that the data available to the agency represented the best

-

### Page 238 of 425 performing sources for Hg control. Therefore, the MACT limit for Hg is based upon the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data. We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities.
D . Unfunded Mandates Reform Ac t Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private secto r. This action does not contain a f ederal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. This action is not expected to impact state, local or t ribal governments. The nationwide annual cost to the affected industry is estimated to be $19.0 million
per y ea r for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule and $54,100
per y ea r for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule (2011 dollars) . Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contain s no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small

### Page 239 of 425

govern ments . I t contains no requirements that apply to such governments , nor does it impose obligations upon them
. E . Executive Order 13132 : Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned

o r operated by state governments and nothing in this proposal will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action . In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications be tween the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicit s comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribu tion of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified

### Page 240 of 425
in Executive Order 13175. The action impose s requirements on owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and not tribal government s. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action , t he EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
G . Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Ris ks The EPA interprets Executive Orde r 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23 , 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5

- 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action i s not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals, which will provide some increased protection of health for people of all ages including children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not

### Page 241 of 425 adversely directly affect productivity, competition or prices i n the energy sector.
I . National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104

- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standa rds (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business pr actices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the a gency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves tech nical standards
. The EPA proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19

- 10

- 1981 , Part 10 , “ Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses ,” is acceptable as an al ternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) , “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , ” is acceptable a s an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.

### Page 242 of 425

ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) , “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) , ” is acceptable as an alternati ve to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). ASTM D6348

- 03 ( Reapproved 2010), “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy , ” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 3 20 with the following conditions: (1) t he test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348

- 03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) i n ASTM D6348

- 03 Annex A 5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined f or each target analyte (Equation A 5
. 5 ). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, th e test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte ( i.e. , the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:

### Page 243 of 425 Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and , specifically , invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in one or both of these regulation s . J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Popula tions and Low

- Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to m ake environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low

- income popul ations in the United
States. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations because they increase the level of environ mental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or

### Page 244 of 425 environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income or indigenous populations
. The proposed rule establish es natio nal standards that will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus the proposed rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on human health and the environment.

### NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and **NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing P**  **age 245**  **of 425**  **List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 6 3**  Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
.

____________________________ Dated:

____ ________________________ Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

### Page 246 of 425

F or the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: **PART 63 --**  **NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR**
**POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES**  1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: **Authority:** 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
. 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (f)( 1); b. Revising paragraph (g)(74); c. Revising paragraph (g)(84); d. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and e. Revising paragraph (l)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows: **§63.14 Incorporations by reference.**
* * * * * (f) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

– 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [P art 10, Instruments and Apparatus] , issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved for §§63.309 (k) , 63.457(k), 63. 772(e) and (h), 63.865 (b) , 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.3166 (a) , 63.3360 (e) , 63.3545 (a) , 63.3555 (a) , 63.4166 (a) , 63.4362 (a) , 63.4766 (a) , 63.4965 (a) , 63.5160 (d) , table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.930 7 (c) ,

### Page 247 of 425
63.9323 (a) , 63.11148 (e) , 63.11155 (e) , 63.11162 (f) , 63.11163 (g) , 63.11410 (j) , 63.11551 (a) , 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart
ZZZZZ
. * * * * * (g) * * * (74) ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Approved Oc tober 1, 2010), IBR approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU , and appendix B to subpart
UUUUU. * * * * * (84) ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Par ticle

- Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for §§63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpa rt JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.

### Page 248 of 425
* * * * * (95) ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Miner al Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , IBR approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and table 4 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * * (l) * * * (2) EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Gui dance, September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f). 3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows: **Subpart JJJJJ --**  **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick**  **and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing**
Sec. **What This Subpart Covers** 63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?

### Page 249 of 425 **General Complianc e Requirements**  63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements** 63.8435 By what date must I conduct per formance tests? 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8455 How do I demo nstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance wit h the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Notifications, Reports, and Records** 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8490 What records must I keep? 63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? **Other Requirements and Information** 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart? **Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63** Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Work Practice Standards Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subp art JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

### Page 250 of 425 Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirement s for Reports Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ **What This Subpart Covers §63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?**  This subpart establishes national emission limitations for hazardous air pollut ants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. **§63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?**
Y ou are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay produc ts manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.

### Page 251 of 425 (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. **§63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?**  (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility. (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected source s are described in paragraph (b)(1) and (2). (1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are an affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product will be cal led a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln. (2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this sub part are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.

### Page 252 of 425 (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. (2) Raw material processing and handling. (3) Dryers. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after **[ insert date of publication in**  **the Federal Register ]**  , and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstruct ed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2. (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. **§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this su bpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is after **[ insert date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** but before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60

### Page 253 of 425
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [ THE DAT E 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply w ith the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations an d work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [ THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) If you have an existing area source that increases its emissions or it s potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (d) If you have a new area sour ce ( i.e. , an area source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after **[ insert**  **date of publication in the Federal Register ]**  ) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major

### Page 254 of 425 source of HAP, you must be in complia nce with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in subpart A of this part . Some of the notifications must be submitt ed before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards §63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards** 
**must I meet?** (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you. **§63.8410 What are my options for m eeting the emission**  **limitations and work practice standards?** (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system
. Use an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and

### Page 255 of 425 demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applica ble operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes
. Use low

- HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subp art. (b) To meet the work practice standards for affected periodic kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. (c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. (d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. **General Compliance Requir ements**  **§63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times,

### Page 256 of 425 except during periods of routine control device mainte nance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. (b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section,
you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner con sistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achie ved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and in spection of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8395 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) ( e.g . , continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.

### Page 257 of 425 ( c) For each aff ected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8425. (d) If you own or operate an affe cted kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue operating the kiln upon approval by the Admi nistrator provided you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request a routine control device maintenance exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenanc e on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator.

### Page 258 of 425 (2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 4 percent of the annual opera ting uptime for each kiln. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source’s title V permit. (4) You must minimize HAP emission s during the period when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (e) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in this subpart at all times. (f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 8 to this subpart. **§63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans?**  (a) For each affected k iln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan

### Page 259 of 425 must be available for inspecti on by the permitting authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and t he operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limit ations in §63.8405. The limits must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long

- term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedul e that is consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD).

### Page 260 of 425 (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria ( e.g. , calibrations). (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3 ), (7), and ( 8)
. (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d)
. (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8485 and 63.8490. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcti ng the deviation and returning the operating parameters to the allowable limits. (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed.

### Page 261 of 425 (12) Procedures for keeping records to documen t compliance. (13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take the kiln control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in §63.8420( d), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln during periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on th e kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator as specified in §63.7(b). (2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved a t the revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under §63.9(h).

### Page 262 of 425 (d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance
pr ocedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test. **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements §63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?**  For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in T able 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in §63.8395 and according to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2). **§63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance**  **tests?** (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial perform ance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. **§63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits?**  (a) You must conduct each perfo rmance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you.

### Page 263 of 425 (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under th e specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating con ditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the co nditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

### Page 264 of 425 (f) You must use the data gathered during the pe rformance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in Table 1 t o this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P ER MP = 

### (Eq. 1)

Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour. (2) To determine compliance with the health

- base d standard for acid gas HAP for BSCP manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) C alculate the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF , HCl, and Cl 2 

### for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 2:

                +               + =
2 2 Cl HCl Cl HF HCl HF HCl i 

### RfC RfC E RfC RfC E E E 

### (Eq. 2)

Wher e:
E i 

### = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

### Page 265 of 425

E HCl 

### = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HF 

### = emission s of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E Cl2 

### = emission s of Cl 2 

### , kilograms (pounds) per hour RfC HCl 

### = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF 

### = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfC Cl2 

### = r eference concentration for chlorine , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facilit y, sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 3: 

# ∑

= 

## = n

i i total 

## E E 1 

### (Eq. 3)

Where:
E total 

### = HCl

- equivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E i 

### = HCl

- equivalent emission s f or kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) Compare this value to the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart. ( g) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.

### Page 266 of 425 (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln,

c alculate the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF , HCl, and Cl 2 

### for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation
4: 

# ( ) ( ) ( ) 

# ( )                 +         + =
2 2 max Cl HCl iCl HF HCl iHF iHCl i i 

### RfC RfC MP RfC RfC MP MP Cap E 

### (Eq. 4)

Where:
E max i 

### = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour Cap i 

### = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour
MP iH Cl 

### = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F 

### = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iC l2 

### = mass of Cl 2 

### per unit of prod uction for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl 2 

### per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl 

### = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF 

### = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfC Cl2 

### = reference concentration for Cl 2 

### , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 5:

### Page 267 of 425 

# ∑

= 

## = n

i i total 

## E E 1 max

max 

### (Eq. 5 )

Where:
E max t otal 

### = max imum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E max i 

### = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal 

### ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , determine the maximum process rate for the tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit . The maximum process rate would become your operating limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.


# ( ) ( ) 

# ( )                 +         + =

2 2 max

Cl HCl iCl HF HCl iHF iHCl i 

### RfC RfC MP RfC RfC MP MP eq - HCl P 

### (Eq. 6 )

Where:
P max i 

### = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per hour HCl

- eq = HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26 kilograms (57 pounds) per hour
MP iH Cl 

### = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired

### Page 268 of 425 product
MP iH F 

### = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iC l2 

### = mass of Cl 2 

### per unit of production for kiln i, k ilograms (pounds) of Cl 2 

### per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl 

### = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF 

### = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfC Cl2 

### = r eference concentra tion for Cl 2 

### , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal 

### ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , determine the combination of maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit . The maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan
. (h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.

### Page 269 of 425 (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring dev ice or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits. (2) Establish si te

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. **§63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and**  **maintenance requirements?** (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.

### Page 270 of 425 (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according
to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more th an four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63. 8420( d)). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour average period, you must have at least 75 percen t of the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63. 8420( d)). (4) R ecord the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check.

### Page 271 of 425 (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (b) For each liquid flo w measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the
pressure. (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

### Page 272 of 425 (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check ga uge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all comp onents for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this secti on. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points every 8 hours of process operation. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.

### Page 273 of 425 (1) Ea ch triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14)
. Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system mu st be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset lev el is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

### Page 274 of 425 (7) For negative pressure or induc ed air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by refer ence, see §63.14)
. (10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by m ore than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365

- day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the “Fabri c Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Record each adjustment.

### Page 275 of 425 (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed system repl aces limestone at least as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test. (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8445(h) and 63.8(f). **§63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance wi th the**  **emission limitations and work practice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 5 to this subpart.

### Page 276 of 425 (b) You must establish each site

- specifi c operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in §63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in §63.8480(e). **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate**  **continuous compliance?** (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of m onitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) a t all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in §63. 8420( d) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any

### Page 277 of 425 sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data collected during all other perio ds in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. **§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission lim**  **itations and work practice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. (b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as required in §63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your

### Page 278 of 425

a pproved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described in §§63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. This includes peri ods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8485. (d) Deviations that oc cur during periods of control device maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63. 8420(d) are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance wi th the approved routine control device maintenance exemption. (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry l ime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.

### Page 279 of 425 (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes
. (2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Meth od 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (3) If VE are observed during a ny test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in §63.8485.

### Page 280 of 425 **Notifications, Reports, and Records §63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?**  (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b ) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) As specified in §63.9(b)( 2) , if you start up your affected source before [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBL ICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) As specified in §63.9( b)(2), if you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subj ect to this subpart. (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in §63.7(b)(1). (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of

### Page 281 of 425 Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of th is sec tion. (1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, according to §63.10(d)(2). (2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this sectio n in your Notification of Compliance Status. (i) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. (ii) For each APCD that includes a fab ric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8450(e). (3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards), you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the

### Page 28 2 of 425 close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completi on of the compliance demonstrations. (f) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63.8420( d), you must submit your request for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date. **§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?**  (a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or de livered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

### Page 283 of 425 (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is s ubject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1 ) through (7) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and infor mation in the report are true, accurate, and complete.

### Page 284 of 425 (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the

n umber of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63. 8420( d). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the kiln control led by the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period.

### Page 285 of 425 (B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline fo r maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance exemption during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 7. 

# ( ) 100

c p c p 

### KU KU DT DT RM + +
= 

### (Eq. 7 )

Where:
RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device was offline for routine control device maintenance
DT p 

### = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c 

### = Control device downtime claimed under the routine con trol device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual compliance period
KU p 

### = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period
KU c 

### = Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance period (5) A report of the most recent burner tune

- up con ducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart.

### Page 286 of 425 (6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement t hat there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no p eriods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission l imitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The t otal operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identification of the sources for which there was a deviation. (2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable) , as applicable, and the corrective action taken.

### Page 287 of 425 (3) The applicable operating limit or work practice standard from which you deviated and either the parameter monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you deviated from the work practice standard. (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in
paragra phs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identificati on of the sources for which there was a deviation. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low

- level) and high

- level checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out

- of

control, including the pertinent informatio n in your OM&M plan. (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption or during another period ,

### Page 288 of 425 and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit during the deviation , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. (6 ) A description of corrective action taken in response to a deviation. (7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (10) A brief description of the process units. (11) A brief description of the CMS. (12) The da te of the latest CMS certification or audit. (13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period.

### Page 289 of 425 ( f ) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the compliance report must contain the inform ation in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicab le emission limitation to be exceeded. (2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize emissions in accordance with §6 3
. 8420(b) , including actions taken to correct a malfunction. (g) If yo u have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If y ou submit a compliance report according to Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information c oncerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any

### Page 290 of 425 obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( h ) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this subpart, you mu st submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the
EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA’s ER T
W eb site ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ) at the time of the test , you must submit the results of the performance
test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface ( CEDRI ). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) ( http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp ) .) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use o f the EPA’s ERT. Instead of submitting performance test data in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site, once the XML schema is available
. If you claim that some of the

### Page 291 of 425 performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT (or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA’s ERT W eb site once the XML schema is available) , including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact dis c, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The elec tronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file (or alternate file ) with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site at the time of the test , you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. **§63.8490 What records must I keep?** (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) A copy of each notification and report that yo u submitted to comply with this subpart, including all

### Page 292 of 425 documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as requir ed in §63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under §63. 8420(d). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detec tion system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter val ue, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and the corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its

### Page 293 of 425
normal or usual mann er of operation , and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
R ecord and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit a nd a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a fired

- product basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures. (5) Records of maintenance and inspec tions performed on the
APCD. (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records documenting conformance. (7) L ogs of the information required in paragraphs ( c )( 7 ) (i) through ( iii ) of this section to document proper operation of you r periodic kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assig ned to use in log sheets
.

### Page 294 of 425 (ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii ) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. (8) L ogs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrat e compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (9) R ecords of burner tune

- ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns. (10) For periods o f startup, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each startup period , logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the time the first bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaust stopped bypassing the con trol device. For periods of shutdown, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each shutdown period , logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the time the last bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable,

### Page 295 of 425 logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaus t began bypassing the control device
. ( 11 ) For each malfunction, records of the following information: (i ) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation ( i.e. , process equipment) or the air pollution control and monitoring equipme nt. (ii ) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with §6 3
. 8420(b) , including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. **§63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?** (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each r ecord for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective actio n, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

### Page 296 of 425 **Other Requirements and Information §63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?**  Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the Gen eral Provisions in §§63.1 through 63. 16 apply to you. **§63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?** (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S . EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if impl ementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part , the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal
agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.

### Page 297 of 425 (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in §63.8395, and the non

- opacity emission limitations in §63.8405. (2) Approval of maj or changes to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90. (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in §63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defi ned in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. **§63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?** Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §63.2, and in this section as f ollows: Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter i n order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that

### Page 298 of 425 operates on triboelectric, light

- scattering, light

transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Brick and structural clay pr oducts (BSCP) manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay pro ducts. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source sub ject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit
. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injecti on of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.

### Page 299 of 425 Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed tower filled with limeston e, and may or may not include a peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for reuse. Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering
a gas s tream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Initial startup means: (1) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DLA, the time at which the temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 ° C (500 ° F) and the kiln contains product; or (2) f or a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier.

### Page 300 of 425 Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer. Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, n ew, or reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8), and as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mer cury, nickel, and selenium. Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln. Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right

- of

- way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2.

### Page 301 of 425
Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fire d product. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP. Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream that exhaus ts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity fo llowing modifications. Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sor bent. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

### Page 302 of 425 **Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63** As stated in §63.8405, you must m eet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits**

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at facility, including all process streams. HF, HCl, and Cl 2 

### emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent, under the health

- based standard, as determined using Equations 2 and 3. Not applicable.

2. Existing tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg ( 0.16 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 92 mg/dscm ( 0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 

### ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.00 11 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr) of fired product. 3 . Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥ 10 tph of fired product) , including all process streams
. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) ( 2.2 E

- 05 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 29 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 7% O 2 

### ; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr). 4. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; or

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).

### Page 303 of 425

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** 5. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln, including all process streams a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 15 mg/dscm ( 0.0066 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 

### ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/hr) of fired product. 6. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/hr (2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). 7. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).


### As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Operating Limits**

**For each...**  **You must...** 1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; or, if you are monitor ing t he bypas s stack damper position , initiate corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan ; and

### Page 304 of 425

**For each...**  **You must...** b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; and c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack. 2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not e ngaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous inje ction systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test for continuous injection systems. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; and c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests; and d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performanc e test. 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test.

5. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control. a. Maintain no VE from the stack.

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1).

### Page 305 of 425

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: **Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63**  **-- Work Practice Standards** 

**For each**  **... You must...**  **According to the following requirements...** 1. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop and us e a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iii. For each firing load, d ocument the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1b; and iv. D evelop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and v. Develop and maintain records for each periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions. i. Maintain and inspect the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion. 3. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of startup a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ); and ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ). 4. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ); and

### Page 306 of 425

**For each**  **... You must...**  **According to the following requirements...** ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ).


### As stated in §63.8445, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63**  **-- Requirements for**  **Performance Tests**

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  1. Tunnel kiln. a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. Sa mpling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to the ma nual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Method s 3A and 3B.

### Page 307 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3.
e. Measure HF, HCl and Cl 2 

### emissions. Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8; or Yo u may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid PM ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapp roved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A. Method 320 of appendix A of this part
. When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part , you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part , unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Met hod 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1

- A8 are mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined for each target analyte. f. Measure PM emissions or non - Hg HAP metals. i. For PM only: Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3; or

### Page 308 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  ii. For PM or non - Hg HAP metals: Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. To determine PM, weigh the filter and report the results as PM filterable.
g. Measure Hg emissions. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
. 2. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control. Establish the operating limit (s) for kiln process rate if the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart and emissions and production data from the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test
. Using the procedures in §63.8445(g)(1), y ou must determine the maximum process rate (s) for your kiln(s) that wo uld ensure total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. The maximum process rate (s) would become your site

- specific process rate operating limit(s)
. 3. Tunnel kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg production

based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production

- based emission limits. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performance tests ( e.g. , no. of pushes per hour, no. of bricks per kiln car, weight of a typical fired brick). You must measure and record the production rate, on a fired

- product basis, of the affected source for each of the three test runs.

### Page 309 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  4. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Establish the operating limit for the average pressure drop across the DLA. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. You must continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurem ents for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit. b. Establish the operating limit for the limestone feeder setting. Data from the limestone feeder during the HF/HCl/C l 2 

### performance test. You must ensure that you maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times during the performance test. You must establish your limestone feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, one week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the one

- week period that precedes the performance test and during the performance test. c. Document the source and grade of limestone used. Records of limestone purchase.

### Page 310 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  5. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. Establish the operating limit for the lime feeder setting. Data from the lime feeder during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, for the three test runs . If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. 6. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM/ non - Hg HAP metals performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, determine and re cord the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

spec ific pressure drop operating limit.

### Page 311 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the pH measurement device during the performance HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pH measurements for the three test runs. The average of the th ree test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid pH operating limit. c. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for th e three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid flow rate operating level . If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals tests, the highest of the average values become you r site

specific operating limit
.

### Page 312 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  7. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS that includes chemical addition to the water. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber chemical feed rate. Data from the chemical feed rate measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber chemical feed rate, determine and record the block average chemical feed rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour bl ock average of the recorded chemical feed rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific chemical addition rate operating limit. 8. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate valu es for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific activated carbon flow rate operat ing limit.


### As stated in §63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Initial Compliance with Emission**  **Limitations and Work Practice Standards**

### Page 313 of 425

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at the facility, including all process streams. a. HF, HCl, and Cl 2 

### emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent. i. You measure H F , H Cl , and Cl 2 

### emissions for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, se e §63.14) ; or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14); and ii. You c alculat e the HCl

- equivalent emissions for each kiln using Equation 2 to this subpart; and iii. You sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 3 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl

- equivalent does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr). 2. Existing tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg ( 0.16 lb/ton) of fired product or 92 mg/dscm ( 0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 

### ; or i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg ( 0.16 lb/ton) of fired product or 92 mg/dscm ( 0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.088 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of fired product or 97 mg/dscm (0.043 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 

### . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0 11 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr)
. i. The non

- Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.0 11 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr) ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non - Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0 11 4 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr)
.

### Page 314 of 425

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** 3. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not e xceed 1.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr). 4. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by refere nce, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 5. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; or i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### .

### Page 315 of 425

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/hr). i. The non

- Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb /hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non - Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/hr). 6. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 1.1 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 1.1 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). 7. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 

### .

### Page 316 of 425

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iii. D evelop maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles. 9. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln. a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions. i. Conduct initial inspection of the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion.


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

**Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 

### Page 317 of 425

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with a DLA. i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the DLA pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; or continuously monitor ing the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation, and initiating corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damp er is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan ; and ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) contain adequate limestone by performing a daily visual check, which could include one of the following: (1) conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a v isual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the n eed for additional limestone ; and iii. Recording the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; and iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; maintaining records of the source and type of limestone; and v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.

### Page 318 of 425

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. i. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of tim e taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free

- flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiatin g and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once during each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performanc e test. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to §63.84 50(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test; and

### Page 319 of 425

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test; and iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages accordin g to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests; and iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test. 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with ACI system. Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test.

5. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Tabl e 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns with no add

- on control. i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the stack.

### Page 320 of 425

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  ii. I f your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent was not at or below the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart , collecting the kiln process rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3

- hour b lock averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3

- hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1). 6. Periodic kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln ; and ii. For each firing load, d ocument ing the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in Item 1.a.ii of Table 3 to this subpart; and iii. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and iv. Developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490. 7. Tunnel kiln a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable) and tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion no later than 36 calendar months after the previous tune

- up; and ii. Maintaining records of burner tune

- ups used to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard ; and i ii . Submitting a report of most recent tune

- up conducted with compliance report.


### As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

### Page 321 of 425

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit**  **the report...** 1. A compliance report. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits, operating limits) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control as sp ecified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in §63.8485(d) or (e). If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the informa tion in §63.8485(e). Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b).



### As stated in §63.8505, you must comply with the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: **Table 8**  **to Subpart JJJJJ of Par t 63**  **-- Applicability of General**  **Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ**

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 standards. Yes.
§63.3 Units and Abbreviations. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards. Yes.

§63.4 Prohibited Activities. Compliance date; circumvention; severability. Yes.

### Page 322 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.5 Construction/ Reconstruction. Applicability; applications; approvals. Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)

- (4) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced construction or recon struction after proposal. Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(b)(7) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were area sources. Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)

- (2) Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)

- (4) [Reserved]. No.

### Page 323 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.6(c)(5) Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & Maintenance. General Duty to minimize emissions. No. See §63.8420(b) for general duty requirement. §63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & Maintenance. Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP
. No. §63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation & Maintenance. Operati on and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations
. Yes.

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP. No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance Except During SSM. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. No.

§63.6(f)(2)

- (3) Methods for Determining Compliance. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an alternative standard. Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE Standards. Requirements for opacity and VE standards. No, not applicable. §63.6(i) Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Yes.

### Page 324 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.6(j) Presidential Compliance Exemption. President may exempt source category. Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)

- (2) Performance Test Dates. Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations for emission limits and work practice standards ; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Yes.

§63.7(a) (3) Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of Delay in Performance Testing Due To Force Majeure. Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure. Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of Performance Test. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Yes.

§63.7(c ) Quality Assurance(QA)/ Test Plan. Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing Facilities. Requirements for testing facilities. Yes.
§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. No, §63.8445 specifies requirements.

### Page 325 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.7(e)(2)

- (3) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative; must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be u sed. Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under Section 114 Administrator's authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative Test Method. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance Test Data Analysis. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status. Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of Tests. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart. Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance Specifications. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No. §63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with Flares. Requirements for flares in §63.11 apply. No, not applicable.

### Page 326 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)

- (3) Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Maintenance consistent with good air pollutio n control practices. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and Predictable SSM. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in SSMP. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSMP. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. No.

§63.8(c)(2)

- (3) Monitoring System Installation. Must install to get representative e mission and parameter measurements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS Requirements. Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8450 specifies requirements. §63.8(c)(5) Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. COMS minimum procedures. No, not applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS Requirements. Zero and high level calibration check requirements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)

- (8) CMS Requirements. Out

- of

- control periods. Yes. §63.8(d) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes.

### Page 327 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.8(e) CMS Performance Evaluation. Requirements for CMS performance evaluation. Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)

- (5) Alternative Monitoring Method. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy test for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). No, not applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements. No, not applicable.
§63.9(a) Notification Requirements
. Applicability; State delegation. Yes.
§63.9(b) Initial Notifications. Requirements for initial notifications. Yes.
§63.9(c) Request for Compliance Extension. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of Performance Test. Notify Administrator 60 days prior. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Notify Administrator 30 days prior. No, not applicable.
§63.9(g)(1) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of performance evaluation. Yes

§63.9(g)(2)

- (3) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded. No, not applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of Compliance Status. Contents; submittal requirements. Yes.

### Page 328 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.9(i) Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines
. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in Previous Information. Must submit within 15 days after the change. Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Applicability; general information. Yes.
§63.10(b)(1) General Recordkeeping Requirements. General requirements. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns
. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard
. No. See §63.8490(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. §63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related to SSM. Maintenance records
. Yes. §63.10(b)(2)(iv)

- (v) Records Related to SSM. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM
. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)

- (xii) and (xiv) CMS Records. Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or out

- of

control. Yes.

### Page 329 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. No, not applicable.

§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability Determinations. Yes.
§63.10(c)(1)

- (15) Records. Additional records for CMS No, §§63.8425 and 63.8490 specify requirements. §63.10(d)(1) and (2) General Reporting Requirements. Requirements for reporting; performance test results reporting. Yes.

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE. No, not applicable.
§63.10(d)(4) Progress Reports. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See § 63. 8485(f) for malfunction reporting requirements. §63.10(e)(1)

- (3) Additional CMS Reports. Requirements for CMS reporting. No, §§63.8425 and 63.8485 specify requirements. §63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS data. Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data. No, not applicable.

§63.10(f) Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Procedures for Administrator to waive. Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for flares. No, not applicable. §63.12 Delegation. State authority to enforce standards. Yes.
§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, notifications, requests. Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation by Reference. Materials incorporated by reference. Yes.

### Page 330 of 425

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.15 Availability of Information. Information availability; confidential information. Yes.

§63.16 Performance Track Provisions. Requ i rem e nts for Performance Track member facilities. Yes.



### 4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as follows: **Subpart KKKKK --**  **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics**  **Manufacturing**
Sec. **What This Subpart Covers** 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Li mitations and Work Practice Standards**  63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? **General Compliance Requirements** 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements** 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8590 When mu st I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits?

### Page 331 of 425
63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Notifications, Reports, and Records** 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8640 What records must I keep? 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
**O ther Requirements and Information**  63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart? **Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63** Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Work Practice Standards Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Toxic E quivalency Factors Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 8 to Sub part KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Reports Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

### Page 332 of 425 **What This Subpart Covers §63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?**  This subpart establishes national emission limitations and work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and

c ontinuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards. **§63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?** You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wal l tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any

### Page 333 of 425 singl e HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. **§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?** (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or

rec onstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility. (b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln , sanitaryware tunnel kiln , sanitaryware shuttle kiln , ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying , sanitaryware glaze s pray booth , ceramic tile spray dryer , and floor tile press dryer is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for r efiring. (2) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. (3) G laze spray operations that use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis)
. (4) Raw material processing and handling. (5) Wall tile press dryers. (6) Sanitaryware ware dryers.

### Page 334 of 425 (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after **[ insert date of publication in**  **the Federal Register ]**  , and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2. ( f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. **§63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) If you have a new or reconst ructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is after **[ insert date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** but before [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [ THE DATE 60
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBL ICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the

### Page 335 of 425 applicable emission li mitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards for existing so urces in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [ THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) If you have an existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (d) If you have a new area source ( i.e. , an area so urce for which construction or reconstruction was commenced after **[ insert**  **date of publication in the Federal Register ]**  ) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this su bpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8630 according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in subpart A of this part . Some of the notifications must be submitted before you ar e

### Page 336 of 425 required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards §63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards** 
**must I meet?** (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to y ou. **§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system . U se an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and coll ection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart.

### Page 337 of 425 (2) Process changes
. Use low

- HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet th e work practice standards for affected sanitaryware shuttle kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. ( c ) To meet the work practice standards for affected

sources during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. **General Compliance Requirements §63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with**  **thi s subpart?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. (b) Except as speci fied in paragraph (d) of this section,
you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimiz ing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make

### Page 338 of 425 any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with o peration and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and in spection of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8545 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) ( e.g. , continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and veri fied and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. ( c) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8575. (d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that affected source, you may bypass the source

### Page 339 of 425 control device and continue operating the affected source upon approval by the Administrator provided you satisfy the condition s listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request a routine control device maintenance exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time require d to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during source shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each affected source. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source’s title V permit.

### Page 340 of 425 (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the af fected source is operating and the control device is offline. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. ( e ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work prac tice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice standard at all times, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available. ( f ) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this subpart. **§63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans?**  (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting authority upon request. (b) Your O M&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.

### Page 341 of 425 (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A m onitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8555. The limits must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long

- term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s recommenda tions. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the l ast APCD). (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures an d acceptance criteria ( e.g. , calibrations).

### Page 342 of 425 (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assur ance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8635 and 63.8640
. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviatio ns, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the operating parameters t o the allowable limits. (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance. (13) If you operate an affected source and you plan to take the source control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in §63.8570( d ), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section.

### Page 343 of 425 (i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the affected sourc e during periods of routine maintenance of the source control device when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on the source control device when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator as specified in §63.7(b). (2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised op erating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under §63.9(h). (d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test.

### Page 344 of 425 **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements §63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?**  For each affected source that is subject t o the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in §63.8545 and according to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2). **§63.8590 When m ust I conduct subsequent performance tests?**  (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. **§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating l**  **imits?** (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and cali brate all monitoring equipment.

### Page 345 of 425 (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administr ator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown . The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests durin g periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upo n request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limit ations.

### Page 34 6 of 425 (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit o f production for each test run using Equation 1:

P ER MP = 

### (Eq. 1)

Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each perfor mance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour. (2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanit aryware glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of glaze sprayed for each test run using Equation 2:

G ER MG = 

### (Eq. 2 )

Where:
MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of PM per megagram (ton) of glaze sprayed
ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
G = glaze application rate during each performance test run,

### Page 347 of 425 megagrams (tons) of glaze sprayed per hour. (3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, and floor tile press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin (2,3,7,8

- TCDD) toxic equi valents (TEQs) for each test run using Equation 3: 

# ( ) 

# ∑

= 

## × = n

i i i 

## TEF C TEQ 1 

### (Eq. 3)

Where: TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQs, nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
C i 

### = concentration of dioxin or furan congener i, nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
TE F i 

### = 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for congener i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart
.
n = number of congeners included in TEQ (4) To determine compliance with the health

- based standard for acid gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing fac ilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) C alculate the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation
4: 

##               + = HF HCl HF HCl i 

## RfC RfC E E E (Eq. 4)

### Page 348 of 425
Where:
E i 

### = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HCl 

### = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HF 

### = emission s of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour RfC HCl 

### = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF 

### = r eference concentration for HF , 14 microgram s per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 5: 

# ∑

= 

## = n

i i total 

## E E 1 

### (Eq. 5)

Where:
E total 

### = HCl

- equivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E i 

### = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) Compare this value to the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart. (g) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.

### Page 349 of 425 (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel or roller kiln, you must c alculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 6: 

# ( ) ( ) ( )               + = HF HCl iHF iHCl i i 

## RfC RfC MP MP Cap E max 

### (Eq. 6)

Where:
E max i 

### = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilog rams (pounds) per hour Cap i 

### = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour
MP iH Cl 

### = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F 

### = mass of HF per unit of produc tion for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl 

### = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF 

### = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7: 

# ∑

= 

## = n

i i total 

## E E 1 max

max 

### (Eq. 7 )

Where:
E max t otal 

### = maximum potential HCl

- e quivalent emission s for total of

### Page 350 of 425 all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E max i 

### = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of kilns at facility (iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal 

### ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , you must determine the maximum process rate for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensure the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit . The maximum process rate would become your operating limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.


# ( ) ( )               + =

HF HCl iHF iHCl i 

## RfC RfC MP MP eq - HCl P

max 

### (E q. 8 )

Where:
P max i 

### = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per hour HCl

- eq = HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62 kilograms (140 pounds) per hour
MP iH Cl 

### = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F 

### = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl 

### = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter

### Page 351 of 425
RfC HF 

### = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter (iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal 

### ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , you must determine the combination of maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the HCl

equivalent limit . The maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan
. (h) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.

### Page 352 of 425 (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitori ng device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits. (2) Establ ish site

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. **§63.8600 What are my monitoring install ation, operation, and**  **maintenance requirements?** (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in par agraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more

### Page 353 of 425 than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control devic e maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63.8570( d )). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63.8570( d )). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limite d to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.

### Page 354 of 425 (1) Locate th e flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check. (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the
pressur e. (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly.

### Page 355 of 425 (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pH measurement device, you m ust meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points every 8 hours of process operation. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For ea ch bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the “Fabric Filter Bag Lea k Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Other

### Page 356 of 425 types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s written spec ifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter s ystems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

### Page 357 of 425 (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to sec tion 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14)
. (10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365

- day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspe ction which demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Record each adjustment
. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
sect ion.

### Page 358 of 425 (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) (1) through (5) and paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being mea sured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8595(h) and 63.8(f). **§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitati**  **ons and work practice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 6 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Tab le 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in §63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart.

### Page 359 of 425 (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requir ements in §63.8630(e). **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate**  **continuous compliance?** (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data a t all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in §63.8570( d ) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless

### Page 360 of 425 operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. **§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and wo**  **rk practice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subp art. (b) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as required in §63.8595( h )(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alter native monitoring procedures request, as described in §§63.8595( h )(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that

### Page 361 of 425 applies to you. This includes periods of startup, sh utdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8635. ( d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63.8570( d ) are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the approved ro utine control device maintenance exemption. (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or o ther dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60,
app endix A

- 7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.

### Page 362 of 425 (2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule unti l no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in §63.8635. **Notifications, Reports, and Records §63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?**  (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) and (c ), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected source before [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERA L REGISTER], you must

### Page 363 of 425 submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERAL REGISTER]. (c) As specified in §63.9 (b)(2), if you start up your new
or reconstruct ed affected source or affected source described in §63.8540(d) or §63.8540(e) on or after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days a fter you become subject to this subpart. (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a written notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as r equired in §63.7(b)(1). (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragra phs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performa nce test results,

### Page 364 of 425 before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, according to §63.10(d)(2). (2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2 )(i) and (ii) of this section in your Notification of Compliance Status: (i) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. (ii) For e ach APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8600(e). (3) For each compliance demo nstration required in Table 6 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstration for the work practice standard), you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the compliance demonstration. (f) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63.8570( d ), you must submit your request for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date.

### Page 365 of 425 (g) I f you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665. The notification must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the natural gas supply interruption began. (4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use. (5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to begin and end. **§63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit each report in Table 8 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Adm inistrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must

### Page 366 of 425 submit each report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report mu st cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no la ter than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent

### Page 367 of 425 compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of ac cording to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( 4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the affected source controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (i ii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control device was offline.

### Page 368 of 425 (i ii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8570( d ). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine contr ol device maintenance exemption, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual co mpliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device

m aintenance exemption during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of affected source operating uptime during which the control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 9. 

# ( ) 100

c p c p 

### +SU SU +DT DT RM= 

### (Eq. 9)

### Page 369 of 425
Where:
RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which control device was offline for routine control device maintenance
DT p 

### = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c 

### = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual compliance period
SU p 

### = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period
SU c 

### = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual compliance period (5) If there are no deviations from any emission l imitations (emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period
. (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (d) For ea ch deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain

### Page 370 of 425 the information in para graphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identifica tion of the sources for which there was a deviation. (2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (3) The applicable operating limit o r work practice standard from which you deviated and either the parameter monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you deviated from the work practice standard. (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or opera ting limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includ es periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identification of the sources for which there was a deviation.

### Page 371 of 425 (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low

- level) and high

- level checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out

- of

control, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan. (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, an d whether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (5) An est imate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit during the deviation , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. (6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a deviation. (7) A summary o f the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.

### Page 372 of 425 (9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (10) A brief description of the process units. (11) A brief description of the CMS. (12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period. (f ) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. (2) A description of actions taken by an owner o r operator during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize emissions in accordance with §6 3
. 8570 ( b ), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. (g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 7 1, you must report

### Page 373 of 425 all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as pa rt of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. (h) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Ide ntification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason for using the alternative fuel.

### Page 374 of 425 (4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln. (5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended. (6) Amount of alternative fuel used. ( i ) Within 60 d ays after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section. (1) For d ata collected using test methods supported by the
EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA’s ERT
W eb site ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ) at the time of the test , you must submit the results of the performance
test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface ( CEDRI ). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) ( http://c dx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp ) .) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of submitting performance test data in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alter nate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site, once the

### Page 375 of 425
XML schema is available
. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA ’s ERT (or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA’s ERT W eb site once the XML schema is available) , including information claimed to be CBI , on a compact dis c, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group , MD C4 04

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file (or alternate file ) with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site at the time of the test , you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63 .13. **§63.8640 What records must I keep?** (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.

### Page 376 of 425 (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supportin g any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in §63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance a nd documentation of your approved routine control device maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under §63.8570( d ). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitatio n and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (1 0 ) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective act ion was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the caus e of the deviation, actions taken to

### Page 377 of 425
minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b) and the corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation , and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, sh utdown, or malfunction.
R ecord and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) For each affect ed source, records of production rates on a fired

- product weight basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures. (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the
APCD. (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, includin g any revisions, with records documenting conformance. (7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs ( c)(7)(i ) through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy

### Page 378 of 425 may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets. (ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of product fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. ( 8 ) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the mai ntenance requirements of the sanitaryware shuttle kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart. ( 9 ) For periods of startup, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each startup period , logs of the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature at the time the first ceramics were placed in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln or dryer exhaust stopped bypassing the control device. For periods of shutdown, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each shutdown period , logs of the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature at the time the last ceramics were placed in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature

### Page 379 of 425 when the kiln or dryer exhaust began bypassing the control device
. ( 10 ) For each malfunction, records of the following information: (i ) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation ( i.e. , process equipment) or the air pollution control and monitoring equipment. (ii ) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction
t o minimize emissions in accordance with §63
. 8570 ( b ), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. **§63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?**  (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measureme nt, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

### Page 380 of 425 **Other Requirements and Information §63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?**  Table 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63 .16 apply to you. **§63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?** (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has d elegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcemen t of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part , the authorities contained in paragraph (c) o f this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal
agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through ( 5) of this section.

### Page 381 of 425 (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in §63.8545, and the non

- opacity emission limitations in §63.8555. (2) Approval of major changes to test methods u nder §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90. (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in §63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. **§63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?** Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows: Air pollution contro l device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failur es. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that

### Page 382 of 425 operates on triboelectric, light

- scattering, light

transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form the processed mate rials into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

so urce: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted t o implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this subpart
.

### Page 383 of 425
Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes contin uous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Emission limita tion means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material applied to ceramic products before firing. Glaze line means a production lin e for glazing ceramic products, which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of one or more glaze spray booths) and other types of glazing operations ( e.g. , dipping, flooding, centrifugal disc glazing , curtain coating). Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze on ceramic products. Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the

### Page 384 of 425 kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing cla y ceramics, whichever is earlier. Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln is modified to increase the cap acity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 6 0, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8), and as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selen ium. Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural
g as does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.

### Page 385 of 425
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right

- of

- way. Comm on control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Roller kiln means a continuous kiln sim ilar to a tunnel kiln except that the unfired ceramic product travel s through the kiln in a single layer on rollers
. In the clay ceramics source category, roller kilns are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants. Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln th at is designed with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress . In the clay ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants. Spray dryer means a drying chamb er used to form a free

flowing powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.

### Page 386 of 425
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics source category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent. Work practice standar d means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. **Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63** As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits**
**For each... You must meet the following emission limits...**  1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at facility HF and HCl emissions must not exceed 62 kilograms per hour ( kg/hr ) ( 140 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl equivalent, under the health

- based standard, as determined using Equations 4 and 5. 2. Existing floor tile roller kiln. a . PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) ( 0.18 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (n g/dscm ) at 7% O 2 

### .

### Page 387 of 425
3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.099 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.7 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 4. Existing first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 6. Existing sanitaryware m anual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 7. Existing sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

8. Existing sanitaryware r obot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 9. Existing f loor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 11. Existing f loor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln a . PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

05 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg ( 0.27 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5 E

- 06 kg/Mg ( 3.1 E

06 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 0.23 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 14. New or reconstructed first

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product.

### Page 388 of 425
fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7
. 9 E

- 0 5 kg/Mg (1.6 E

04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application PM e missions must not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### .



### As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63**  **-- Operating Limits** 
**For each... You must...**  1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIF F or DLS/FF stack; and

### Page 389 of 425

b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test; and c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests; and d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl performance test. 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average carbon flow r ate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests.

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test.

5. T unnel or roller kiln with no add

on control. a. Maintain no VE from the stack; and

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1); and c. Maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a FF. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the FF stack; and

### Page 390 of 425

7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped with a water curtain. Conduct daily inspection s to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system ; and Conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks ; and Conduct annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment
. 9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles t o confirm the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 11. Floor tile press dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test.


### As stated in §63.8555, you must comply with each work practice standard in the following table that a pplies to you: **Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Work Practice Standards**

**For each... You must...**  **According to one of the following requirements...**  1. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shuttle kiln. a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665; and ii. Develop and us e a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the sanitaryware shu ttle kiln
. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iv. For each firing load, d ocument the

### Page 391 of 425
total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1.a.iii; and v. D evelop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln tha t , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shutt le kiln, as specified in §63.8640. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or dryer during periods of startup a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ). 3. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or dryer during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ).


### As stated in §63.8595, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Perform**  **ance Tests**

### Page 392 of 425

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  1. Tunnel or roller kiln. a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3.

### Page 393 of 425

e. Measure HF and HCl emissions. i. Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8; or You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid PM ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorpora ted by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A. ii. Method 320 of appendix A of this part
. When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part , you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part , unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1

- A8 are mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined for each target analyte. f. Measure PM emissions. i. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3; or ii. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. To determine PM, weigh the filter and report the results as PM filterable.

### Page 394 of 425

g. Measure Hg emissions. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
. h. Measure dioxin/furan emissions. Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. 2. Glaze spray operation a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3. e. Measure PM emissions. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendi x A

- 3.

### Page 395 of 425
f. Measure Hg emissions (tile glaze spray operations only). Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
. 3. Spray dryer or floor tile press dryer a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosph ere for all affected sources. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to usi ng Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3. e. Measure dioxin/furan emissions. Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7.

### Page 396 of 425

4. Tunnel or roller kiln with no add

on control. a. Establish the operating limit(s) for kiln process rate if the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart and emissions a nd production data from the HF/HCl/Cl 2 

### performance test
. Using the procedures in §63.8595(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate (s) for your kiln(s) that wo uld ensure total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. The maximum process rate (s) would become your site

- specific process rate operating limit(s)
. b. Establish the operating limit for kiln operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the kiln operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the thr ee test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is c omplying with PM and/or Hg production

based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production

- based emission limits. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performanc e tests ( e.g. , the number of ceramic pieces and weight per piece in the kiln during a test run divided by the amount of time to fire a piece). You must measure and record the production rate, on a fired

- product weight basis, of the affected kiln for each o f the three test runs.

### Page 397 of 425

6. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. Establish the operating limit for the lime feeder setting. Data from the lime feeder during the HF/HCl performance test. For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, for the three test runs . If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. 7. Tunnel or roller kil n equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pre ssure drop operating limit. b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the pH measurement device during the HF/HCl performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pH measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid pH operating limit.

### Page 398 of 425

c. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid flow rate operating level . If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the HF/HCl and PM tests, the highest of the average values become you r site

specific operating limit
. 8. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS that includes chemical addition to the water. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber chemical feed rate. Data from the chemical feed rate measurement device during the HF/HCl performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber chemical feed rate, determine and record the block average chemical feed rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded chemica l feed rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific chemical addition rate operating limit.

### Page 399 of 425

9. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate values for the three test run s, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. 10. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Establish the operating limit for kiln operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuou sly measure the kiln operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average o f the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 11. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit.

### Page 400 of 425

b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the PM performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded flow rate measur ements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid flow rate operating limit
. 12. Spray dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement dev ice during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temp erature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 13. Floor tile press dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measure ment device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recor ded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site

specific operating limit.

### Page 401 of 425 As stated in §63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by calculating the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQs using the TEFs in the following table: **Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63**  **— Toxic**  **Equivalency Factors**

**For each dioxin/furan congener... You must calculate its**  **2,3,7,8 -**  **TCDD TEQ using the**  **following TEF...** 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 1 1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 1 1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.1 1,2,3,7,8,9

- hexachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.1 1,2,3,6,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.01 Octachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.0003 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 2,3,4,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.3 1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.03 1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 1,2,3,6,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 1,2,3,7,8,9

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 2,3,4,6,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlor o dibenzofuran 0.01 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- heptachlor o dibenzofuran 0.01 Octachlor o dibenzofuran 0.0003


### As stated in §63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63**  **-- Initial Compliance with**  **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards**

### Page 402 of 425

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial compliance**  **if...** 1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility. a. HF, HCl, and Cl 2 

### emissions must not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr) HCl equivalent. i. You measure H F and H Cl emissions for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by refere nce, see §63.14) ; or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14); and ii. You c alculat e the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF for each kiln using Equation 4 to this subpart; and
iii. You sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 5 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl

- equivalent does not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr). 2. Existing floor tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg ( 0.18 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg ( 0.18 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg ( 0.18 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , ove r the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during whic h Hg emissions did not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product.

### Page 403 of 425

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 1 0 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0. 1 0 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0. 1 0 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E

- 0 4 kg /Mg ( 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance tes t, do not exceed 1.0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### .

### Page 404 of 425
4. Existing first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the p eriod of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg /Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance tes t, do not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 5. Existing tile gl aze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

### Page 405 of 425
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this s ubpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 6. Existing sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and h ave a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 7. Existing sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6 .2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 8. Existing sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 9. Existing f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, ove r the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and

### Page 406 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 11. Existing f loor tile press dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appe ndix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product; and

### Page 407 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 0 kg/Mg ( 0.2 0 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.1 0 kg/Mg ( 0. 2 0 lb/ton) of f ired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.1 0 kg/Mg ( 0. 2 0 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , ove r the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1. 0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during whic h Hg emissions did not exceed 1. 0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and

### Page 408 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 14. New or reconstructed first

- fire sanitaryware tunne l kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, A S T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and

### Page 409 of 425

ii. You establish and have a record o f the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial pe rformance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not ex ceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton ) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

### Page 41 0 of 425

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7 % O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 

### . 22. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shutt le kiln. a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel; and

ii. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln
. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iv. D evelop maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles.

### Page 411 of 425 As stated in §63.8620, you must demon strate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table:

**Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to this subpart for kil ns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. i. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the f abric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to init iate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free

flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing co rrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl

### Page 412 of 425
performance test. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubb er pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH es tablished during the HF/HCl performance test; and iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests; and iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scru bber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl performance test. 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped w ith ACI system. Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highe st average carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests.

### Page 413 of 425

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Collecting the kiln operating temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no add

- on control a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel or roller kilns with no add

- on control. i. Performin g VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the stack.

ii. I f your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent was not at or below the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart , collecting the kiln process rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3

- hour b lock averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3

- hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1). iii. Collecting the kiln operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average operating temperature es tablished during the dioxin/furan performance test. 6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a FF. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart for glaze spray If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such

### Page 414 of 425
operations equipped with a FF. that the alarm is no t engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the FF stack. 7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 7 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.860 0(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and i i. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or a bove the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped with a water curtain. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 8 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with a water curtain. Conducting daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system; and

Conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks; and Conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if

### Page 415 of 425
applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. 9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 9 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with baffles. Conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 10 of Table 2 to this subpart for spray dryers. Collecting the operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. 11. Floor tile press dryer Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in It em 11 of Table 2 to this subpart for floor tile press dryers. Collecting the operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating t emperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. 1 2 . Sanitaryware shuttle kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Maintaining records documenting your use of natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; and ii. If you intend to use an alternative fuel, submitting a notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665; and iii. Submitting a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel, as specified in §63.8635(g ); and iv. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle kiln ; and

### Page 416 of 425
v. For each firing load, d ocument ing the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum lo ad identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 to this subpart; and vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vii. Developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, as specified in §63.8640.


### As stated in §63.8635, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit**  **the report...** 1. A compliance report. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or work practice standards that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8635(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in §63.8635(d) or (e). If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in §63.8635(e). Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8635(b).

### Page 417 of 425
2. A report of alternative fuel use. The information in §63.8635(g). If you are subject to the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart, and you use an alternative fuel to fire an affected kiln, by letter within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel.


### As stated in §63.8655, you must comply with the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: **Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK** 

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart KKKKK ?**  §63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability determination; appl icability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 standards. Yes.
§63.3 Units and Abbreviations. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards. Yes.
§63.4 Prohibited Activities. Compliance date; circumvention; severability. Yes.

§63.5 Construction/ Reconstruction. Applicability; applications; approvals. Yes.
§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Yes.

### Page 418 of 425
§63.6(b)(1)

- (4) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Yes.

§6 3.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. §63.6(b)(7) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were area sources. Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)

- (2) Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)

- (4) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(c)(5) Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. Ar ea sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.
§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & Maintenance. General Duty to minimize emissions. No. See §63.8570(b) for general duty requirement. §63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & Maintenance. Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP. No. §63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation & Maintenance. Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations. Yes.

### Page 419 of 425

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP. No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance Except During SSM. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. No.

§63.6(f)(2)

- (3) Methods for Determining Compliance. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an alternative standard. Yes.
§63.6(h) Opacity/VE Standards. Requirements for opacity and VE standards. No, not applicable. §63.6(i) Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance exte nsion. Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential Compliance Exemption. President may exempt source category. Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)

- (2) Performance Test Dates. Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations for emission limits and work practice standards ; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of Delay in Performance Testing Due To Force Majeure. Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure. Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of Performance Test. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Yes.

### Page 420 of 425

§63.7(c) Quality Assurance (QA)/ Test Plan. Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external Q A procedures for testing. Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing Facilities. Requirements for testing facilities. Yes.
§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions. No, §63.8595 specifies requirements.
Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Yes.

§63.7(e)(2)

- (3) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative; must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under Section 114 Administrator' s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative Test Method. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance Test Data Analysis. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status. Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of Tests. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart. Yes.

### Page 421 of 425

§63.8(a)(2) Performance Specifications. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No. §63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with Flares. Requirements for flares in §63.11 apply. No, not applicable. §63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)

- (3) Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Maintenance consistent with good air pollution control practices. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and Predictable SSM. Re porting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in SSMP. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSMP. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. No.

§63.8(c)(2)

- (3) Monitoring System Installation. Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS Requirements. Requi rements for CMS. No, §63.8600 specifies requirements
. §63.8(c)(5) Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. COMS minimum procedures. No, not applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS Requirements. Zero and high level calibration check requirements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)

- (8) CMS Requirements. Out

- of

- control periods. Yes.

### Page 422 of 425
§63.8(d) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes.
§63.8(e) CMS Performance Evaluation. Requirements for CMS performance evaluation. Yes.
§63.8(f)(1)

- (5) Alternative Monitoring Method. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy test for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). No, not applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements. No, not applicable. §63.9(a) Notification Requirements. Applicability; State delegation. Yes.
§63.9(b) Initial Notifications. Requirements for initial notifications. Yes.
§63.9(c) Request for Compliance Extension. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of Performance Test. Notify Administrator 60 days prior. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Notif y Administrator 30 days prior. No, not applicable.
§63.9(g)(1) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of performance evaluation. Yes.

§63.9(g)(2)

- (3) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded. No, not applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of Compliance Status. Contents; submittal requirements. Yes.

### Page 423 of 425
§63.9(i) Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in Previous Information. Must submit within 15 days after the change. Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Applicability; general information. Yes.
§63.10(b)(1) General Recordkeeping Requirements. General requirements. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard. No. See §63.86 40(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. §63 .10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related to SSM. Maintenance records. Yes. §63.10(b)(2)(iv)

- (v) Records Related to SSM. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)

- (xii) and (xiv) CMS Records. Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or out

- of

control. Yes.

### Page 424 of 425
§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. No, not applicable.
§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability Determinations. Yes.
§63.10(c)(1)

- (15) Records. Additional records for CMS. No, §§63.8575 and 63.8640 specify requirements. §63.10(d)(1) and (2) General Reporting Requirements. Requirements for reporting; performance test results reporting. Yes.

§63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE. No, not applicable.
§63.10(d)(4) Progress Reports. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See §63.8635(f) for malfunction reporting requirements. §63.10(e)(1)

- (3) Additional CMS Reports. Requirements for CMS reporting. No, §§63.8575 and 63.8635 specify requirements. §63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS data. Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data. No, not applicable.
§63.10(f) Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Procedures for Administrator to waive. Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for flares. No, not applicable. §63.12 Delegation. State authority to enforce standards. Yes.
§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, notifications, requests. Yes.
§63.14 Incorporation by Reference. Materials incorporated by reference. Yes.
§63.15 Availability of Information. Information availability; confidential information. Yes.

### Page 425 of 425

§63.16 Performance Track Provisions. Requ i rem e nts for Performance Track member facilities. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6560

- 50

- P E.O. 128 66_Brick & Clay 2060

- AP69 NPRM_ 20140 9 16
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63**  **[EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 0**  **and EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2013 -**  **029 1**  **; FRL -**  **9913 -**  **58 -**  **OAR ]** 
**RIN 2060**  **- AP69**  **NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing** 
**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency.
**ACTION:** Proposed rule.
**SUMMARY:** T he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP ) for Brick b rick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing s tructural c lay p roducts m anufacturing and NE SHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing c lay c eramics m anufacturing
. T he EPA is proposing th at all major sources in these categories meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for
mercury , non - mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only) ; health

- based standards for acid gas HAP ; and work practice standards , where applicable
. T h e proposed rule , which has been informed by input from industry and other stakeholders , including small businesses, would protect air***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 2 of 444 Formatted: Normal quality and promote public healt h by reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the C lean A ir A ct (CAA)
. **DATES:** Comments . Comments must be received on or before **[ insert**  **date 60**  **days after the date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . A copy of comments on the information collection provisions should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before **[ insert date**  **30 days after the date of**  **publication in the Federal Register ]** 
. Public Hearing
. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing by [ **insert date INSERT DATE**  5 **days after the date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** , **DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  the EPA will hold a public hearing on [ **insert date INSERT DATE**  15 **days after the date of**  **publication in the Federal Register DAYS AFTER DATE OF** 
**PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER** ] from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time ] at the U.S.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alex ander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
. If you are interested in requesting a public hearing or attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541

– 7966 or garrett.pamela@epa.gov
. If the EPA holds a public hearing, the EPA will kee p the record of the hearing open for 30 days after Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 3 of 444 Formatted: Normal completion of the hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information
. **ADDRESSES** : Comments . Submit your comments, identified by Docket
ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov : Follow the on

- line instructions fo r submitting comments.

• Email : A

- and

- R

- docket@epa.gov
. Include Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing or EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing in the subject line of the message
.

• Fax : (202) 566

- 9744.

• Mail : Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) , Mailcode 2822 1 T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 (for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing) or EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing), 1200 P ennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. In addition, plea se mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 72 5 17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503. Formatted: Approved Text Underline***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 4 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• Hand /Courier Delivery : EPA Docket Center , Room 3334, EPA
WJC West Building , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions . Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing or EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email . The http://www.regulati ons.gov W eb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.re gulations.gov , your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 5 of 444 Formatted: Normal available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dock ets
. Docket . The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2013

- 0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dock ets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g. , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not pl aced on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building , Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 6 of 444 Formatted: Normal Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744 and the telephone numb er for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566

- 1742. Public Hearing
. If anyone contacts t he EPA requesting requested by **[INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],**  we will hold a public hearing by **[insert date 5**  **days after the date of publication in**  **the Federal Register ]**  , the public hearing will be held on [ **insert date INSERT DATE**  15 **days after the date of publication in the Federal Register]**  at the EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
. The hearing will begin at **DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL**
**REGISTER** ], from 1:00 p.m. ( [ Eastern Standard Time ) and conclude
at ] to 5:00 p.m. ( [ Eastern Standard Time ). ] at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Ale xander Drive, Research Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at of the Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243

- 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number: ( 919 ) 541

– - 7966 or ; email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov ; to request a hearing, register to speak at the hearing or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Italic Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 7 of 444 Formatted: Normal be held. The last day to pre

- register in advance to speak at the hearing will be [ **insert date 12 days after the date of**  **publication in the Federal Register]**
. INSERT DATE 12 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please let us know at the time of registration. If you require an accommodation w e ask that you pre

- register for the hearing, as we may not be able to arrange such accommodations without advance notice. If no one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to be held concerning this proposed rule by **[ insert date 5 days**  **after the date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** , a public The hearing will not take place. If a hearing is held, it will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking action . The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register.
Because the this hearing will be is being held at an a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identifi cation to the Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 8 of 444 Formatted: Normal security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is issued by Alaska, American Sam oa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma , or the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver’s licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons.

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting info rmation presented at the public hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. Garrett if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statement s will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Black

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: Double, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font color: Black***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 9 of 444 Formatted: Normal possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Again, a h earing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested. Please A hearing needs to be requested by [INSERT DATE 5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Again, please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at of the Sector Policies and Programs Div ision (D243

- 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: ( 919 ) 541

– - 7966 or garrett.pamela@epa.gov ; email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request or register to speak at the hearing or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing will be held

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** : For question s about the proposed rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products
M anufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing , contact Mr. Jeff Telander M s. Sharon Nizich , Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243

- 0 4 ) , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; T elephone number : (919) 541

- 5427 2825 ; F ax number : (919) 541

- 5 450 ; E mail address: telander.jeff@epa.gov nizich.sharon@epa.gov
. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
. This preamble includes several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data inventories and risk modeling. While this list Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font color: Black

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Font color: Black Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Courier New, Font color: Text 1***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 10 of 444 Formatted: Normal may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: 3xRDL representative detection level values multiplied by three ACI activated carbon injection A EGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM

– 3 model APCD air pollution control device ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BDL below detection limit BLD bag leak detection BSCP brick and structural clay products CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CAS Chemical Abstract Services CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cl 2 chlorine CO carbon monoxide CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter DLA dry limestone adsorber DLL detection level limited DLS /FF dry lime scrubber /fabric filter EPA Environmental Protecti on Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool °F degrees Fahrenheit FF fabric filter FTIR Fourier transform infrared gr / dscf grain s per dry standard cubic foot HAP hazardous air pollutant HCl hydrogen chloride HEM

- 3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1) HF hydrogen fluoride Hg mercury HQ hazard quotient***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 11 of 444 Formatted: Normal
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer ICR information collection request IOM Institute of Medicine IRFA i nitial regulatory flexibility analysis IRIS Integrated Risk Information System K kurtosis statistic lb /hr pound s per hour lb /ton pound s per ton LML lowest measured level MACT maximum achievable control technology mg / m 3 milligram s per cubic meter μg /dscm microgram s per dry standard cubi c meter μg / m 3 microgram s per cubic meter MMBtu /yr million British thermal units per year MRL Minim al Risk Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ng/dscm nano gram s per dry standard cubic meter No. number NO 2 n itrogen dioxide NOAEL no observable adverse effect level non - Hg non - mercury NO X nitrogen oxides NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act O 2 oxygen OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring OMB Office of Management and Budget % percent PIC products of incomplete combustion PLC programmable logic controller PM particulate matter PM 2.5 particulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter RDL representative detection level REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis S skewness statistic SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 12 of 444 Formatted: Normal
SBE Standard Brick Equivalent SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SBE Standard Brick Equivalent SEK standard error of kurtosis SER small entity representative SES standard error of skewness SO 2 sulfur dioxide SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin TEQ 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalents TOSHI target organ - specific hazard index tph tons per hour tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act μg /dscm microgram s per dry standard cubic meter μg / m 3 microgram s per cubic meter UPL Upper Prediction Limit VCS voluntary consensus standards VE visible emissions WHO World Health Organization Organization of This Document
. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: **I. General Information** A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D
. What should I consider as I prepare my comme nts for the EPA?
**I I. Background Information**  A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule ? B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and m alfunction ? C
. What is the history of the proposed rule? D . What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the B rick and S tructural C lay P roducts and C lay C eramics Manufacturing source categories?
**I II**  **. Summary of the**  **Proposed Rule**  **for the Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing Source**  **Category** A. What source categor y is affected by the proposed rule ? B. What are the affected sources?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 13 of 444 Formatted: Normal
C. Does the proposed rule apply to me ? D . What emission limit ation s and work practice standards must I meet ? E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements? F . W hat are the test ing and initial compliance requirements? G . What are the continuous compliance requirements? H . What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA? **IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing** A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule? C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories? D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the proposed emission limitations for existing and new source s? E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing sources? F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floor for new sou rces? G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets? H . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing sources? I . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? J . How did the EPA determine whether to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? K . How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements ? M
. How did the EPA select the c ompliance requirements? N . How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? O . How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the proposed rule? P . How does the proposed rule affect permits? Q . What are the alternate approa ches the EPA is consider ing ? **V. Summary of the Proposed Rule**  **for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Category**  A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule? B. What are the affected sources? C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 14 of 444 Formatted: Normal
D. What emission l imitations and work practice standards must I meet? E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements? F . What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? G . What are the continuous compliance requirements? H . What are the notification, recordkeep ing and reporting requirements? I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?
**VI . Rationale for the Proposed**  **Rule for Clay Ceramics**  **Manufacturing** A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? B . How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule? C . How did the EPA consider different subcategories? D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources? E. How did the EPA determine the MAC T floors for existing sources? F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources? G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets? H . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing sources? I . How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? J . How did the EPA determine whether to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? K . How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements ? M
. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements? N . How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? O . How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the propos ed rule? P . How does the proposed rule affect permits?
**VII .**  **Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Standards**  A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts ? B. What are the secondary impacts ? C. What are the economic impacts? D . What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 15 of 444 Formatted: Normal
**VIII .**  **Public Participation and Request for Comment** 
**I X**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**  A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E
. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Gover nments G
. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I
. National Technology Transfer a nd Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations **I. General Information**
A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA ) requires the EPA to set emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ( HAP ) emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT . We issued the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) manufacturing and the NESHAP for C lay Ceramics
M anufacturing on May 16, 2003
. T he two NESHAP w ere vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. T o address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are proposing new***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 16 of 444 Formatted: Normal
standards for B SCP M anufacturing and C lay C eramics
M anufacturing m anufacturing and c lay c eramics m anufacturing
. 2. Summary of the Major Provisions
BSCP NESHAP
. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for mercury ( Hg ) and non

- mercury (non

- Hg ) HAP metals (or particulate matter ( PM ) PM surrogate) and a health

- based emission limit for acid gases ( hydrogen fluoride ( HF ) , hydrogen chloride ( HCl ) and chlorine ( Cl 2 ) ) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing work practice standards for periodic kilns , for dioxin s /furan s from tunnel kilns and for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns . To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits , the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutan ts , continuous parameter monitoring and daily visible emissions ( VE ) checks. Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with a fabric filter (FF) ( e.g. , dry lime injection fabric filter ( DIFF ) , dry lime scrubber/fabric filter ( DLS/FF ) ) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detect i o n ( BLD ) system instead of daily VE checks. Clay Ceramics NESHAP
. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for Hg , PM (surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans and health

- based emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 17 of 444 Formatted: Normal
roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers , MACT emission limits for H g and PM (surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) for ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. T he EPA is also proposing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and for perio ds of startup and shutdown . To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits , the EPA is proposing initial and repeat 5

- year performance testing for the regulated pollutants , continuous parameter monitoring and daily VE checks. Owners/operators whose aff ected sources are equipped with a FF ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system instead of daily VE checks. 3
. Costs and Benefits Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) , while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufactur ing NESHAP) . See section VII of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and benefits for the BSCP M anufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 18 of 444 Formatted: Normal
C eramics M anufacturing NESHAP. See section I X.B of this preamble for discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.
**Table 1 —**  **Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 40 CFR Part 63,**  **Subpart JJJJJ (**  **millions of 2011 dollars)**  **Requirement Capital cost**  **Annual cost Net benefit**  Emission controls $54.9 $18.4 $26 to $99 Emissions testing $0.977 $0.238 Monitoring

-- $0.346

**Table 2 —**  **Summary of the Costs of 40 CFR Part 63,**  **Subpart KKKKK (**  **millions of 2011 dollars)**  **Requirement Capital cost**  **Annual cost** Emission controls $ 0 $ 0 Emissions testing $0.1 02 $ 0. 0 249 Monitoring

-- $ 0.02 0 9

B
. Does this action apply to me? The regulat ed c ategories and entitie s potentially affected by th e proposed standards are shown in Table 3 of this preamble :
**Table 3 —**  **NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by this Proposed Action** 
**Category NAICS**  **code a**  **Examples of potentially**  **regulated entities** Industry.... 327120 Brick, s tructural clay and e xtruded tile manufacturing facilities (BSCP NESHAP) ; and c eramic wall and floor tile manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP)
. 32711 0 Vitreous plumbing fixtures (sanitaryware) manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 19 of 444 Formatted: Normal Federal government...
... Not affected
. State/local/tribal government... ... Not affected
.

a North American Industry Classification System
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility , company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40
CFR 6 3
. 8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP) . If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions)
. C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the
EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) W eb site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrato r, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 20 of 444 Formatted: Normal
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html . Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same W eb site
. D
. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email . Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD

- ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD

- ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD

- ROM the speci fic information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public do cket. If you submit a CD

- ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD

- ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2 . Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 21 of 444 Formatted: Normal Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404

- 02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291 (for BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (for Clay Cer amics Manufacturing NESHAP)
. **I I. Background Information** 
A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule ? Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achiev ed in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more stringent “beyond

- the

- floor” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of redu ction in emissions of HAP,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 22 of 444 Formatted: Normal
but must take into account the associated costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts when doing so
. B
. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CA A's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA , we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shu tdown periods and, for the reasons explained in sections
I V
. L and V I
. L of this preamble, has proposed alternate standards for some sources during those periods. Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 23 of 444 Formatted: Normal Instead they are, by definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preve ntable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requir ing emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, e missions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the a gency to consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the U.S. Court of Appeals fo r the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of” sources “ says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated. ” Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Ag encies v. EPA , 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
. While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the a gency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treate d in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 24 of 444 Formatted: Normal during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such

eve nts in setting section CAA 112 standards. Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these

reasons , the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g. , Sier ra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ( “T he EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data

- gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific in formation, rather than to ‘ invest the resources to conduct the perfect study. ’ ” ) See also , Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipa te all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 25 of 444 Formatted: Normal insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter fo r the administrative exercise of case

- by

- case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation . For example, if an air pollution control device with 99

- percent removal goes off

- line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to s hut down, the source would go from 99

- percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations , and the emissions over a 4

- day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less
str ingent than ) levels that are achieved by a well

- performing

non - malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpreta tion of the statute.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 26 of 444 Formatted: Normal In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the so urce to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “ sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable ” and was not instead

“ caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation .” 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction ). If the EPA determines in a particular case that enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted , the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and , in particu lar, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions
. Administrative and judicial***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 27 of 444 Formatted: Normal procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. C. What is the history of the proposed rule? Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and
C lay C eramics Manufacturing source categories by November 2 000. The a gency initially promulgated standards for these categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003). Those standards were challenged and subsequently vacated by the Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v.
EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to promulgate standards for these categ ories under CAA section 112 based on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged that claim in a motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to act by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 2007
vacatur o f the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the District Court found that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty to set standards by 2000 and h e ld that Sierra Club’s claims***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 28 of 444 Formatted: Normal
could continue. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a consent decree to settle the litigation and establish proposal and promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for these categories. Following the 200 7 vacatur of the 2003 rule , the EPA began efforts to collect additional data to support new standards for the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. T he EPA conducted an initial information collection effort in 2008 to update information on the inventory of af fected units , hereafter referred to as “the 2008 EPA survey.” The EPA conducted a second information collection effort in 2010 to obtain additional emissions data and information on each facility’s SSM procedures , hereafter referred to as “the 2010 EPA sur vey . ” The information collected as part of these surveys and not claimed as CBI by respondents is available in Docket ID Nos. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0290 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. In addition, the dockets A

– 9 9

– 30 and OAR

- 2002

- 0054 are incorporated by reference fo r BSCP
. T he dockets A

- 2000

- 48 , OAR

- 2002

- 0055 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0424 are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 29 of 444 Formatted: Normal
D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the
B rick and S tructural C lay P roducts Manufacturing and C lay
C eramics Manufacturing source categories? The proposed rule protect s air quality and promote s the public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns
. E missions data collected during development of the proposed rule show s that acid gases such as HF, HCl and Cl 2 represent the predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay ceramics kilns, accounting for 99.3 percent of the total HAP emissions. These kilns also emit lesser amounts of other HAP compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans, accounting for about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals emitted include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury , nickel and selenium. Exposure to these HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders ( e.g. , irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous syste m and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders ( e.g. , lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI ) and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 30 of 444 Formatted: Normal four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and nickel).
**I II**  **. Summary of the Proposed Rule**  **for the Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing**  **Source Category**  This section summarizes the requirements for the BSCP
M anufacturing source category proposed in today’s action. Section I V of this preamble provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.
A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule? Today’s proposed rule for BSCP M anufacturing applies to
BSC P manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The BSCP M anufacturing source category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick, structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products.
B. What are the affected sources? The affected source s, which are the portions of each source in the category for which we are setting standards, are: (1) a ll tunnel kiln s at a BSCP manufacturing facility ; and ( 2 ) each periodic kiln. For purposes of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , tunnel kilns are defined to include any type of continuous***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 31 of 444 Formatted: Normal kiln used at BSCP manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns. Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, including sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust

- fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, including: (1) a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution Control Device ( APCD ) APCD and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to the requirements of today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. The following BSCP process units are not subject to the requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) k ilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products and ( 2 ) dryers
. See section IV.A of this preamble for information on why these sources are not subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule applies to own ers or operat ors of a n affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 32 of 444 Formatted: Normal source of HAP emissions is any stationary s ource or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit , considering controls , 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 t py or more of any combination of HAP.
D. What emi ssion limitations and work practice standards must I
meet? 1. Emission Limitations We are proposing a choice of e mission limits for total non

Hg HAP metals for all new and existing tunnel kilns
. The options include a total non

- Hg HAP metals limit ( pounds per hour ( lb/hr ) ) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals ( pounds per ton ( lb/ton ) or grain s per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/dscf ) at 7 percent oxygen ( O 2 ) )
. We are also proposing a choice of e mission limits for Hg (lb/ton , lb/hr o r microgram s per dry standard cubic meter ( μg/dscm ) at 7 percent
O 2 ) for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based on kiln size
. In this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of 10 tons per hour ( tp h ) or greater and a small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity of less than 10 tp h
. We are also proposing an emission limit for HCl

- equivalent for all existing and new***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 33 of 444 Formatted: Normal
tunn el kilns at the facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 . The proposed emission limits for Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals are presented in Table 4 of this preamble.
**Table 4 —**  **Proposed Total Non**  **- Mercury HAP Metals and Mercury**  **Emission Limits for Brick and Structural Clay Products Tunnel**  **Kilns**
**Subcategory Acid gases**  **Total non**  **- Hg HAP**  **metals Hg**  Limits for existing sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- -- 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 29 μg/dscm at 7

-

percent O 2 for each existing large tunnel kiln at facility Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- -- 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 μg/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 for each existing small tunnel kiln at facility All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HCl

equivalent for collection of all existing tunnel kiln s at facility 0.1 6 lb/ton PM OR 0.04 0 gr/dscf PM at 7 percent O 2 OR 0.02 3 lb/hr non - Hg HAP metals for each existing

tunnel kiln at facility --

Limits for new sources Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) -- -- 2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton OR 2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr OR 13 μg/dscm at 7

-

percent O 2 for each new large tunnel kiln at facility Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) -- -- 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton OR 0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 μg/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 for each new small tunnel kiln at facility***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 34 of 444 Formatted: Normal

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **Total non**  **- Hg HAP**  **metals Hg**  All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HCl

equivalent for collection of all new tunnel kiln s at facility 0.0 22 lb/ton PM OR 0.00 66 gr/dscf PM at 7

- percent

O 2 OR 0.00 32 lb/hr non

- Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln

at facility --

2. Work Practice Standards We are proposing work practice standards for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits
. The work practice standards would require develop ing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln ; lab eling each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; documentin g the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load ; d eveloping and imple mentin g maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance ; and d eveloping and maint aining records for each periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the periodic kilns. We are also proposing work practice standards for BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits . The work practice standards would require maintaining and inspecting the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 35 of 444 Formatted: Normal burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable) ; tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion ; keeping records of each burner tune

- up ; and submitting a report for each
tune

- up conducted.
E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements? The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section
II. B of this preamble. S tandards for periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in this section.
W e are proposing the work practice standards described in this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the o wner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit ( °F ) . In addition, no bricks or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F . In addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. W hen the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required t o***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 36 of 444 Formatted: Normal comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of this preamble.
W e are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well
. For startup, no bricks or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F
. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F
. F
. What are the testing and initial compl iance requirements? We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A
p erformance test would have to be conducted before renewing the facility’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every
5 five years following the initial performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under today’s proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , the owner or operator would have to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 , Hg and PM (or non - Hg HAP metals). We are proposing that the owner or operator measure HF, HCl and Cl 2 using one of the following methods:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 37 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources

- Isokinetic Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8;
• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, append ix A

- 8, when no acid particulate ( e.g. , HF, HCl or Cl 2 dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, a ppendix A, provided the test follow s the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
• Any other alternative method that h as been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Following the performance test, the owner or operator would calculate the HCl

- equivalent for the kiln using proposed Equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.8445( f )(2) (i) . If there are m ultiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HCl

equivalent for each kiln using proposed Equation 3 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the proposed limitation. If the owner or operator choose s to comply with one of the two PM emission limits, w e are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR p art 60, appendix A

- 3;
• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, where***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 38 of 444 Formatted: Normal
the test results would report the weigh t of the PM on the filter as PM filterable; or
• Any other alternative method that ha s been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. If the owner or operator choose s to comply with the non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limit s , the owner or operator would measure non - Hg H AP metals emissions using EPA Method 29 cited above or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other approved alternative m ethod to measure Hg emissions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements that we are proposing
. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator would need to install the continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS ) equipment to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator would use the CPMS to establish site

- specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

- flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 39 of 444 Formatted: Normal fired product basi s) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator would be required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

specific feed rate operating limi t. If there are different average feed rate values during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site

- specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator would need to submit ana lyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator submit analyses an d supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a dry limestone adsorber ( DLA ) , we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously measure the pressure drop

across the DLA during the HF/H Cl/Cl 2 performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average pressure drop. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific pressure drop operating limit. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 40 of 444 Formatted: Normal position at least once every 15 minutes during the performance
test. The owner or operator also would need to maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the to p of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or operator would need to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the 1

- week period tha t precedes the performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or operator would need to document the source and grade of the limestone used during the performance test.
For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator c ontinuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test , the scrubber liquid pH and chemical addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM/n on - Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance
tests . For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator would need to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3

- hour block average value. The average of the three test runs e stablishes the minimum site

- specific pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 41 of 444 Formatted: Normal flow rate values are measured during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl 2 tests, the hi ghest of the average values become the site

- specific operating limit.
For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system , we are proposing that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit.
For a source with no APCD installed, we are proposing that the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)( 1)(i ). The owner or operator would u se the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capaci ty of the kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would need to sum the ma ximum potential HCl

- equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases . If the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent is greate r than the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 42 of 444 Formatted: Normal proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that would result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would become the operatin g limit(s) for process rate.
G
. What are the continuous compliance requirements? Today’s BSCP manufacturing rule proposes that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to follow the requirements in the operation, maintenance and monitoring ( OM&M ) plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would need to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initia l performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The
CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour ) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 43 of 444 Formatted: Normal process is operating. The owner or operator would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS ( including inspections, calibrations a nd validation checks ) and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator would need to calculate and record the 3

- hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calcul ate the average for each 3

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator would need to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF / HCl / Cl 2 ) health

- based emission limit by maintain ing free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is not flowing freely, according to l oad cell output , carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 44 of 444 Formatted: Normal The proposed rule would provide the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitor ing to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit. For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a
BLD system alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time fraction, the owner or operator would not count any alarm time if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour
. I f corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm , the owner or operator must count as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitor ing VE, we are proposing that the owner or operator perform daily, 15

- minu te VE observations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. During the VE observations, the kiln would need to be o perating***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 45 of 444 Formatted: Normal under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and t he owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a

w eekly basis.
For a stand

- alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit
. For a DLA, we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF / HCl / Cl 2 ) health

based emission limit by collect ing and record ing data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reduc ing the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

-***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 46 of 444 Formatted: Normal hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper p osition at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation. A ny period in which the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA would trigger corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also wou ld need to verify that the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) and DLA contain an adequate amount of limestone by performing a daily visual check of the limestone hopper and the storage bin . A daily visual check could include one of the following: (1)

c onducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone. I f the hopper or storage bin do es not contain adequate limestone , the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective a ctions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also would have to record the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 47 of 444 Formatted: Normal maintained at or above the level established during the
H F/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. The owner or operator also would need to use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test and maintain records of the source and type of limestone. Finally, the owner

or operator would need to monitor VE, as described in the previous paragraph.
For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance
test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM/non

- H g HAP metals performance test would demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid pH and chemical ( e.g. , lime, caustic) addition rate at or above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test would demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF / HCl / Cl 2 ) health

- based emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 48 of 444 Formatted: Normal HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance tests would demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
For an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compl iance with the Hg emission limit by continuously monitor ing the activated carbon flow rate and maintain ing it at or above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test.
For sources with no APCD , we are proposing that the owner or operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals emission limit
. In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent was not at or below the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases , then we are proposing that the owner or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent to remain at or below the proposed limitation
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 49 of 444 Formatted: Normal

H
. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources w ould be required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in proposed Table 8 of 40 CFR part 64, subpart JJJJJ . The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, r ecordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator would be required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period
. This p roposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in p roposed Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ
. Specifically, w e are proposing that the owner or operator keep the following records:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 50 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.
• Records of performance tests.
• Records rela ting to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance exemption.
• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.
• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
• Records of e ach instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operating limits ).
• Records of production rates.
• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures.
• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD
. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the periodic kiln work practice standard.
• Records of burner tune

- ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken. We are also proposing that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.
• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source become s subject to this subpar t.
• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days follow ing completion of a c ompliance demonstration that includes a performance test.
• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 51 of 444 Formatted: Normal does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations f or the work practice standards).
• Compliance reports semi

- annually , including a report of the most recent burner tune

- up conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard and a report of each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the cor rective action taken
. • Results of each performance test within 60 days of completing the te s t , submitted to the EPA by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods.
I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA? In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners a nd operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports by direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer using
EPA

- provided software. The direct computer

- to

- computer electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The Central Data Exchange CDX is the EPA’s portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA

- provided software is called the Electronic Reporti ng Tool (ERT) , which generates electronic reports of performance tests and evaluations. The ERT report package will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA’s pub lic***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 52 of 444 Formatted: Normal
database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE via the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSub mission ). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found on the ERT W eb site ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ), and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX W eb site ( www.epa.gov/cdx ). The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test . The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available on the ERT W eb site
. We believe that the electronic submittal of reports increases the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping wi th current trends in data availability and may ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting can eliminate paper

- based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancie s and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected sources, air agencies, the EPA and the public.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 53 of 444 Formatted: Normal By making data readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for the development of emission factors. The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA’s emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose , we also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emission factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emission factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. Emission factors are used in the development of emiss ions inventories, and improved emission factors means that the quality of these inventories will be improved more quickly than they would under the current paper reporting requirements. Emissions inventories are used for tracking emission trends and identi fying potential sources of emissions for reduction. For example, the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) uses the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in its screening***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 54 of 444 Formatted: Normal
level assessments to characterize the nationwide chronic cancer risk estimat es and noncancer hazards from inhaling air toxics. The NATA is used as a screening tool for air agencies to prioritize pollutants, emission sources and locations of interest for further study to gain a better understanding of risks. Therefore, improving th e quality of these inventories is

an on - going goal for the agency and a benefit to the public, air agencies and the regulated community. Additionally, the EPA, the regulated community and the public may benefit from electronic reporting when the EPA condu cts its CAA

- required technology and risk

- based reviews. Because we will already have access to these reports, our ability to do comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time. Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA would have performance test data in hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA

- required technology and risk

- based reviews may be needed. This may result in a decr ease in the need for industry staff time to respond to data collection requests. It may also allow the EPA to conduct these required reviews more quickly, as we will not have to include the ICR collection time in the process. While the regulated community may benefit from***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 55 of 444 Formatted: Normal
reduced information collection requests ICRs , the general public benefits from the agency’s ability to provide conduct these required reviews more quickly. Electronic reporting could minimize submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard c opy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, thus minimizing the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of electronically submitted data and reports. There are benefits of information that is submitted in a standardized format. Standardizing the reporting format will require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby helping to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate assessment of data quality. Additionally, imbedded quality assurance checks will perform some of the re quired method calculations, reducing errors in test reports. And because the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 56 of 444 Formatted: Normal system is entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures wil l increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall quality of test data, and lead to more accurate emission factors and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit all users of the data. Air agencies could benefit from more s treamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because the performance test data would be readily

available in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data electronically rather tha n having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet form at. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA’s electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as long as they have access to the Internet). The ability to access a nd review information electronically will assist air agencies in more quickly determining compliance with***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 57 of 444 Formatted: Normal emission standards. This benefits both air agencies and the general public. The general public would also benefit from electronic reporting of emissi ons data because the data would be available for viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. The EPA W eb site that stores the submitted electronic data will be is easily accessible to the public and will provide provide s a

user - friendly inte rface that any stakeholder could access. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data would save in dustry, state, local, tribal air agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while also improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations.
**I V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural**  **Clay Products Manufacturing**
A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the primary sources of HAP emissions are kilns, including tunnel kilns and periodic kilns. The HAP emitted from BSCP kilns include HF, HCl, Cl 2 , Hg and other non

- Hg HAP metals. At one time, dryers were a***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 58 of 444 Formatted: Normal potential source of HF, HCl, Cl 2 and non - Hg HAP metals emissions, but the design and operation of kilns and dryers has changed such that emissions rele ased from the heating of the raw materials and the products of combustion no longer pass from the kiln in to the dryer. In addition, the 2010 EPA survey requested that owners/operators of specific d ryers test for dioxins/furans, and none of the tests found detect a ble levels of dioxins/furans. See the technical memorandum “ Determination of
“Non

- Detect” Test Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule ” in D ocket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1. Other process units at BSCP manufacturing facilities ( e.g. , raw material processing and handling) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP. For this reason, the proposed rule covers existing and new kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities which meet the applicability criteria in the rule. BSCP kilns that do not meet the applicability criteria include kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. Nearly all of the acid gas emissions from the firing of BSCP products are released during the initial firing , so kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products emit little to no HF , HCl or Cl 2 .***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 59 of 444 Formatted: Normal
B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule? For Hg and total non

- Hg HAP metals , t his proposed BSCP manufacturing rule provides owners an d operators of regulated

sources with a choice between a numerical emission rate limit as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced and a numerical emission limit in units of concentration. The selection of numerical emission rate limits and n umerical emission limits as the format for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may not be appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of numerical emission rate limits as mass of pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced ensures that differences in kiln sizes or production rates do not affect the level of emissions control achieved. The PM limit s are proposed as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals
. T he same control techniq ues that would be used to control PM will control non

- Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific individual HAP metals because all kilns do not emit the same type and amount of HAP metals due to differences i n raw***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 60 of 444 Formatted: Normal materials and fuels used to fire the kilns. However, most kilns generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of
HAP metals . The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the cost of performance testing needed to comply with numerous standards for individual non

- Hg HAP metals. We have used PM as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals NESHAP for other rules with similar processes ( e.g. , Portland Cement Manufacturing, Lime Manufacturing). Although we continue to believe that PM is a good su rrogate for non - Hg HAP metals and that complying with a PM emission limit rather than non

- Hg HAP metals limits will be less costly for most kilns, we understand that some owners and operators may find that meeting a total non

- Hg HAP metals limit is less co stly than meeting a PM limit. To provide that flexibility , we have developed an alternative compliance option of a numerical emission rate limit for total non - Hg HAP metals as a mass of pollutant emitted per hour. The ability to c ompl y with this limit would provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions and would achieve equivalent emission reductions to the options to limit PM
. For acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl 2 ), this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule includes a health

- based emission limit as a***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 61 of 444 Formatted: Normal
mass of HCl

- equivalent emitted per hour . Further discussion about the development of the health

- based standard for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is provided in section IV. J of this preamble. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule includes work practices for dioxin s /furan s from tunnel kilns. As described in more detail in section I V. K .2 of this preamble, 83 percent of the dioxin/furan data collected during the information coll ection ICR process were below the detection level and it is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations to apply measurement methodology to test for compliance with a numerical limit
. This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes wor k practices for periodic kilns. As described in more detail in section I V. K .1 of this preamble, technological and economic limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns
. C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories? Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar emission sources within a source category if differences in emissions characteristics, processes or***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 62 of 444 Formatted: Normal opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source category. Upon initial consideration of the available information on the BSCP manufacturing industry, we deter mined that separate subcategories for periodic kilns and tunnel kilns were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total BSCP industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated in batch cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously. Third, periodic kilns are typically operated at higher temperatures than tunnel kilns and products are typically heated in the kiln for longer periods than products fired in tunnel kilns, resulting in higher energy requirements. As noted in section IV. K .1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is techn ologically and economically infeasible to test periodic kilns, thereby ruling o ut a quantitative analysis of how these differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in that smaller kilns operated periodic ally ( i.e. , periodic kilns) would be expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the larg er, continuously operated tunnel kilns
. W e then examined the potential for additional subcategories for tunnel kilns, including subcategorization based on kiln fuel and kiln size. Based on the available emissions test data, we***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 63 of 444 Formatted: Normal could not discern differences in emissions based on fuel type. For that reason, we have not subcategorized by fuel type. We request comment, including additional data if appropriate, on whether we should subcategorize by fuel type. In particular, we
reques t comment on whether we should create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer). We then considered subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on kiln size. There are several differences between the design, operation and eff iciency of larger kilns and smaller kilns. In particular , many small kilns are the older, less efficient kilns in the industry and newer kilns can be constructed to be larger and more efficient due to advances in design. Smaller, older kilns were construct ed with large amounts of heavy refractory brick and are narrow and tall in shape, with high arched ceilings. Larger, newer kilns can be constructed with more efficient refractories and can include features such as fiber linings and insulating brick, result ing in a wider kiln with lower ceilings . In addition, the burners in a small kiln are generally less efficient and are located near the bottom of the kiln, where some of the heat is absorbed by the cars that move the bricks through the kiln rather than by the bricks themselves. In a large kiln, the burners are more efficient and are often located at the top of the kiln, where they can fire***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 64 of 444 Formatted: Normal downward to the product. Combined with the kiln size and shape differences, the difference in burner efficiency and loc ation results in a more even temperature distribution throughout the kiln and product in a large kiln than in a small kiln
. To assess whether these design and operation differences have an effect on emissions and provide support for defining size subcatego ries in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , we conducted a set of statistical analyses on the emissions dataset. In the vacated rule, “small kilns” were defined as kilns with a design capacity less than 10 tph and “large kilns” were defined as kilns with a design capacity of 10 tph or greater. The main goal of the statistical analyses was to determine if these definitions are supported by our current dataset. Because we have Cl 2 , Hg and non

- Hg HAP metals data for only about 10 percent of the kilns in the industry, we conducted the series analyses based on the HF, HCl and PM datasets , which are available for a much larger percentage of the kilns in the industry, providing more representative kiln datasets for the analyses
. We found that the median of the em issions data from kilns in the large kiln dataset was statistically different than the median of the emissions data from kilns in the small kiln dataset for all three pollutants. We also used A lso , based on a***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 65 of 444 Formatted: Normal logistic model to test the , we found high association between emissions and the hypothesized design capacity classification and the association was high . Finally, we conducted a cluster analysis and considered all three pollutants together to investigate whether the combined dataset supported cha nging the definitions of small and large kilns. This cluster analysis supported the subcategory definitions from the vacated rule. (For more information on the statistical analyses, see “ Analysis of Potential Subcategories for BSCP Tunnel Kilns ” in Docket ID
N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1 .) Based on the above information and analyses, we determined that differences in design and emissions exist between large (10 tph or greater) and small (less than 10 tph) kilns. Therefore, we are proposing to exercise our discre tion to subcategorize based on kiln size for these kilns’ emissions of Hg
. As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble , we are not proposing to exercise our discretion to subcategorize for other pollutants.
D. What approaches did the EPA consider in deve loping the proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources? All standards established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 66 of 444 Formatted: Normal
conside ration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determined is achievable for each category. For existing sources, MACT cannot be less stringent than the average emissio n limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5 five sources for subcategories with less than 30 sources. This requirement constitutes the MACT floor for existing sources. The CAA specifies that MACT for new sources shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the be st controlled similar source. This minimum level of stringency is the MACT floor for new units.
T he EPA may not consider costs or other impacts in determining the MACT floor. However, t he EPA must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements in connection with any standards that are more stringent than the MACT floor (beyond

- the

- floor controls). The remainder of this section describes the development of the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg a nd PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) . As noted in section IV. J of this preamble, health

- based emissions standards are being proposed for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 under the provisions***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 67 of 444 Formatted: Normal of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not pre pared

a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants
. 1. Mercury In our MACT floor analysis for Hg, we separated the sources into large kiln and small kiln subcategories, as described in section IV.C of this preamble
. For each subcategory, we ranked the source s based on the data in terms of lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble) and identified the best performing 12 percent of sources. O nce we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton for each sub category as described in section IV.E of this preamble
. W e also calculated the MACT floor in lb/hr and concentration units (μg/dscm at 7

- percent O 2 ) for each subcategory, based on the concentration emissions data for the same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. This is further discussed in section IV. E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. 2. Total N on - Hg HAP Metals We developed MACT floor s for PM as a surrogate for total

non - Hg HAP metals. T he available PM data show that kilns controlled with a FF

- based APCD ( e.g. , DIFF, DLS/FF) as a group***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 68 of 444 Formatted: Normal are better performers than kilns wi thout FF

- based controls. When we divided the kilns into two groups, one group consisting of kilns with a FF

- based APCD and the other group consisting of uncontrolled kilns and kilns with a different type of APCD, we found that the test data for kilns with FF

- based APCD showed they were consistently good performers, while the test data for kilns without a FF

- based APCD varied widely. The worst performing kiln with a FF

- based APCD performs better than the average kiln in the group without a FF

- based APCD. The best performing 75 percent of the kilns with a FF

- based APCD showed better performance than 80 percent of the kilns without a FF

based APCD. We also conducted a t

- test on the averages of the two groups and we found that the average of the test data for ki lns with FF

- based APCD was statistically different from the average of the test data for kilns w ithout a FF

- based APCD (with 99

- percent confidence). See the technical memorandum “ Analysis of Potential Subcategories in the BSCP Source Category ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. One consequence of the wide variability in emissions from kilns without a FF

- based APCD is that there are a few uncontrolled kilns and kilns controlled with DLA with lower lb/ton emissions than some of the kilns control led with a FF

based APCD. We understand that that the emissions from kilns***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 69 of 444 Formatted: Normal
with FF

- based APCD will be consistently low over time , based on the design of these APCD and years of experience with these devices. On the other hand, we do not have multiple tests over time that would enable us to say the same for kilns that have a different type of APCD ( e.g. , DLA) or are uncontrolled. Thus, we are requesting information and analysis as to whether the data showing low emissions from some kilns without a FF

- based A PCD are reliable. 1 As of January 1, 2014, there were 225 operating BSCP tunnel kilns in the industry (including kilns at major sources and synthetic area sources); the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry would be represented by the 27 best performi ng kilns. Therefore, we ranked the kilns with a FF

- based APCD in terms of lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble ) and identified the 27 best performing sources from that group. Once we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton as described in section IV.E of this preamble. W e also calculated the MACT floor in

co ncentration units (gr/dscf at 7

- percent O 2 ), based on the

1 Further, as discussed in section IV.P.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also considering setting emission limits for PM and total non

- Hg HAP metals based on the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size subcategories. The reliability of the data showing low emissions from some kilns without a FF

- based APCD is a key factor i n the EPA’s determination of which approach is appropriate.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 70 of 444 Formatted: Normal concentration emissions data for the same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. As a nother alternative, we calculated an equivalent lb/hr total non

- Hg HAP metals limit using the average non

- Hg HAP metals content of the PM emissions and the av erage process rates of the best performing kilns. This limit woul d provide additional compliance flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions. The alternatives are further discussed in section IV.E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable C ontrol Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1.
E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing
sources? The EPA must consider available emissions information to determine the MACT floors. The EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions contro l that has been achieved by the best performing sources under variable conditions. The U.S. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized that the EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emission reduction achieved by best performing sources and in setting***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 71 of 444 Formatted: Normal
MACT floors. See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA , 370 F.3d 1232, 1241

– 42 (DC Cir. 2004) (holding EPA may consider emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best performing sources and may set the floor at level that best performing source can expect to meet “every day and unde r all operating conditions”). As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble , the EPA established the MACT floors for PM (as a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals ) for BSCP kilns based on sources representing 12 percent of the number of sources in the category. For Hg emitted from each of the kiln subcategories, the EPA established the MACT floors based on sources representing 12 percent of the sources for which we had emissions information. The MACT floor limitations for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals ) were calculated based on the performance of the best performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s average emission value from lowest to highest. Once the best performi ng sources in the MACT floor pools were identified, t he MACT floors were calculated using an Upper Prediction Limit (UPL). The UPL takes into consideration the average performance of the unit s in the MACT floor pool and the varia bility of the test runs dur ing the testing conditions. For***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 72 of 444 Formatted: Normal more information regarding the general use of the UPL and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see the memorandum

“ Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1. The UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean of a specified number of future observations ( e.g. , 3

- run average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the results of an independent sample from th e same population. A prediction interval for a future observation or an average of future observations, is an interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average of some other pre

- specified number of) randomly select ed observation(s) from a population. Given this definition, the UPL represents the value which we can expect the mean of three future observations (3

- run average) to fall below, based upon the results of an independent sample from the same population.
In o ther words, if we were to randomly select a future test condition from any of these sources ( i.e. , average of 3 three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall at or below the UPL value. There are different UPL equations depend ing on the distribution of the data ( e.g. , normal, lognormal, skewed/unknown)
. We first determined the distribution of each***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 73 of 444 Formatted: Normal MACT floor pool ’s data to determine the appropriate UPL equation

us ing s tatistical tests of the kurtosis (K) , standard error of kurt osis (SEK) , skewness (S) and standard error of skewness (SES) . The skewness statistic (S) characterizes the degree of asymmetry of a given data set . According to the skewness hypothesis test, if S is less than 2 two times the SES, the data distribution can b e considered to be normal
. The kurtosis statistic (K) characterizes the degree of peakedness or flatness of a given data distribution in comparison to a normal distribution. According to the kurtosis hypothesis test, if K is less than 2 two times the SEK, the data distribution can be considered to be normal. The skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were applied to both the reported test values and the log

transformed values of the reported test values to determine the distribution of each d ataset
. A UPL was then calculated for each MACT floor pool with the UPL equation corresponding to the dataset’s distribution ( e.g. , normal, lognormal, skewed/unknown)
. A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found in the technical memo randum “ Maximum Achievable Control***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 74 of 444 Formatted: Normal Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0 29 1
. Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component of data variability. Of particular concern are those data that are reported near or below a test method’s pollutant detection capability. There is a concern that a floor emissions limit calcu lated using values at or near the method detection limit may not account adequately for data measurement variability
. The expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value occurring at or near the detection limit is about 40 to 50 percent. Relative p ollutant measurement imprecision decreases to

a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level about 3 times the method detection limit
. 2 One approach that we believe could be applied to account for measurement variability would require defining a detection limit that is representative of the data used in establishing the floor emissions limitations and also minimizes the influence of an out lier test

- specific method detection limit value. The EPA has developed a list of representative detection levels (RDL) developed from available pollutant specific method

2 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements , CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 75 of 444 Formatted: Normal
detection levels. 3 These RDL values are then multiplied by 3 three to decrease measurem ent imprecision to around 10 to 15 percent (as noted in the previous paragraph), resulting in values referred to as “3xRDL” values. The appropriate 3xRDL value was compare d to the calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory . If the 3xRDL value

w as less than the calculated UPL value , we conclude d that measurement variability is adequately addressed and we used the calculated UPL value as the MACT floor emissions limit. If, on the other hand, the 3xRDL value w as greater than the calculated UPL val ue , we conclude d that the calculated UPL value does not account entirely for measurement variability. We then use d the 3xRDL value in place of the calculated UPL value to ensure that measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT floor emissio ns limit. This check was part of the variability analysis for all existing MACT floors that had below detection limit (BDL) or detection level limited (DLL) run data present in the best performing dataset s (see the technical memo randum

“ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for

3 “ Data and proc edure for handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits .” Memorandum from Peter Westlin, SPPD, MPG and Raymond Merrill, AQAD, MTG, to SPPD management and MACT rule writers. December 13, 2011.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 76 of 44 4 Formatted: Normal Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291 ). As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in setting floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best performance over time. For example, we know that the HAP emission data from the best performing units are, for the most part, short

- term averages and that the actual HAP emissions from those sources will vary over t ime. If we do not account for this variability, we would expect that even the units that perform better than the floor on average could potentially exceed the floor emission levels a part of the time, which would mean that variability was not properly take n into account. This variability may include the day

- to

- day variability in the total HAP input to each unit; variability of the sampling and analysis methods; and variability resulting from site

- to

- site differences for the best performing units. The EPA’s consideration of variability accounted for that variability exhibited by the data representing multiple units and multiple data values for a given unit (where available). We calculated the MACT floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described ea rlier from the average performance of the best performing units and the variability of the best performing units.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 77 of 444 Formatted: Normal We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the emission limits selected as the MACT floors adequately represent the level of emissions a ctually achieved by the average of the units in the top 12 percent, considering operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from units representative of the top 12 percent and the variability analysis are reasonably designed to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the best performing 12 percent of units in a given subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor method ology is presented in the technical memo randum “ Maxim um Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. Table 5 of this preamble presents the average emission level of the best performing sources and the existing source MACT f loor. For this source category, all t he existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL.

**Table 5**  **— Summary of MACT Floor Results for**  **Brick and Structural Clay Products**  **Existing Sources a**  **Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  **PM b,c**  Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) Avg. of best performing sources 1.6 E

- 05 lb/ton 1.7 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 1 4 μg/dscm --

MACT floor 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton 2.7 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 29 μg/dscm --

Small tunnel Avg. of best performing 1.8 E

- 04 lb/ton

--***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 78 of 444 Formatted: Normal
**Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  **PM b,c**  kilns (< 10 tph) sources 0.0010 lb/ hr 62 μg/dscm MACT floor 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0011 lb/ hr 70 μg/dscm --

All kilns Avg. of best performing sources -- 0.04 1 lb/ton 0.011 gr/dscf MACT floor

-- 0.1 6 lb/ton 0.04 0 gr/dscf

a For this source category, all the existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL. b Concentration units are at 7

- percent O 2 . c PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources? The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for new sources is somewhat different from the appro ach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for existing sources because the statutory standard is different . Although the MACT floors for existing units are intended to reflect the performance achieved by the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources, the MACT floors for new units are meant to reflect the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. Thus, for existing units, we are concerned about estimating the central tendency of a set of multiple unit s , whereas for new units, we are concerned about estimating the level of control that is representative of that achieved by a single best performing source. As with the analysis for existing sources, the new source analysis must account for variability.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 79 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Si milar to the MACT floor process used for existing units, the approach we used for determining the MACT floor for new units was based on available emissions test data. Specifically , we calculated the new source MACT floor for a subcategory of sources by ran king each unit’s average emission value within the subcategory from lowest to highest to identify the best performing similar source. The new source MACT floor limits for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals ) were calculated based on the performance of the best performing source for each pollutant in each of the subcategories. The MACT floor limits for new sources were calculated using the same UPL formula as was used for existing sources , except the data use d w ere from the best performing source rather than the best performing 12 percent of sources . As previously discussed, we accounted for variability of the best performing source in setting floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best performance over time. We calculated the new source MACT floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier from the average performance of the best performing similar source, Student’s t

- factor and the total variability of the best performing source.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 80 of 444 Formatted: Normal This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as the MACT floor for new sources adequately represents the average level of control achieved in practice by the best controlled simi lar source, considering ordinary operational variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the technical memo randum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. Table 6 of this preamble presents , for each subcategory and pollutant , the average emission level of the best performing similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

**Table 6**  **— Summary of MACT Floor Results for**  **Brick and Structural Clay Products**  **New Sources a**  **Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  **PM b,c**  Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) Avg. of top performer 1.5 E

- 05 lb/ton 1.8 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 10 μg/dscm --

MACT floor 2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton 2.4 E

- 0 4 lb/ hr 13 μg/dscm --

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) Avg. of top performer 1.8 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0010 lb/ hr 62 μg/ dscm --

MACT floor 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton 0.0011 lb/ hr 70 μg/dscm --

All kilns Avg. of top performer

-- 0.00 60 lb/ton 0.002 0 gr/dscf MACT floor

-- 0.0 22 lb/ton d 0.00 66 gr/dscf d

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 81 of 444 Formatted: Normal

b Concentration units are at 7 percent O 2 . c PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on the 3xRDL value
.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets?
I n a recent D.C. Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA , which involved challenges to EPA’s MACT standards for sewage sludge incinerators, questions were raised regarding the application of the UPL to limited datasets. We have since addressed these questions, as explained in detail in the memorandum titled , “Ap proach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited
Datasets” ( hereafter referred to as the “ Limited Dataset Memo ” ), which is available in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. A limited dataset is defined as having less than seven data points. In calculating MACT floor limits based on limited datasets, we considered additional factors as described in the Limited Dataset Memo. W e seek comments on the approach described in the Limited Dataset Memo and whether there are other approaches we should c onsider for such datasets. We also seek comments on the application of this approach for the derivation***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 82 of 444 Formatted: Normal of MACT limits based on limited datasets in this proposal, which are described in the Limited Dataset Memo. For the BSCP manufacturing source category, we have limited datasets for the following pollutants and subcategories: Hg for existing and new small tunnel kilns; PM for new tunnel kilns; and Hg for new large tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.
H
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for existing
sources? As discussed in sections II.A and IV.D of this preamble, the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements that are more strin gent than the MACT floor ( i.e. , beyond

- the

floor options ). When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account the associated costs, energy and non

- air qu ality health and environmental impacts when doing so
. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each subcategory, we considered regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control ( e.g. , the performance of technologies that could result in lower emissions) for the different subcategories. We considered requiring all existing***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 83 of 444 Formatted: Normal
sources to meet the new source MACT floors for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals) developed as described in section IV.F of this prea mble. We analyzed the beyond

- the

- floor options for Hg and total non

- Hg HAP metals separately for existing sources . Our analyses are documented in the technical memorandum , “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP ” , ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291. The beyond

- the

- floor option for total non

- Hg HAP metals is estimated to achieve additional non - Hg HAP metals reductions of 2. 86 tpy and cost an additional $2 2.8 million per year (2011 dollars) , for a cost effectiveness of $ 7 , 96 0,000 per ton of total additional non - Hg HAP metals removed. The beyond

- the

- floor option for Hg is estimated to achieve additional Hg reductions of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds per year ) and cost an additional $ 9.2 5 million per year (2011 dollars) , for a cost effectiveness of $ 148,000 ,000 per ton of total additional Hg removed ($74,000 per pound of additional Hg removed)
. We have concluded that the incremental costs of additional control beyond the MACT floor emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of emission reduction achieved for either the Hg or total non

- Hg HAP metals beyond

- the

- floor options
. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond

- the

- floor limits for Hg or total non

- Hg HAP metals
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 84 of 444 Formatted: Normal

I
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for n ew sources? The MACT floor level of control for new tunnel kilns for each pollutant was based on the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source within each of the subcategories. A new kiln would likely need both a F F and ACI system for control of non - Hg HAP metals and Hg to meet the new source MACT floors. When we establish a beyond

the

- floor standard, we typically identify control techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified that would achieve HAP reductions gre ater than the new source floors for the subcategories. Therefore , the EPA is not proposing a beyond

- the

- floor limit for new sources in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. J
. How did the EPA determine whether to set health

- based standards for existing an d new sources? In developing the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , we considered whether it was appropriate to establish health

- based emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl 2 . As a general matter, CAA section 112(d) requires MACT standards at least as stringent as the MACT floor to be set for all HAP emitted from major sources. However, CAA section 112(d)(4) provides that for HAP with established health***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 85 of 444 Formatted: Normal thresholds, the EPA has the discretionary authority to consider such health thresholds when establishing emission standards under CAA section 112(d). This provision is intended to allow the EPA to establish emission standards other than technology

based MACT standards, in cases where an alternative emission standard wi ll still ensure that the health threshold will not be exceeded, with an ample margin of safety. This section discusses the prerequisite for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard, the factors the EPA considered in exercising its discretion to
set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set the level of the proposed standard. 1. What are the prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? The prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard are that the pollutant must have a health threshold and not be carcinogenic. 4 Whether a pollutant has a health threshold is based on certain factors, including evidence and classification of carcinogenic risk and evidence of noncarcinogenic effects: 5

4 See Portland C ement NESHAP F inal R ule , 75 FR 54970, 54985 (col. 2

- 3) ( September 9, 2010) (“In order to exercise this discretion [to set health threshold standards u nder 112(d)(4)], EPA must first conclude that the HAP at issue has an established health threshold
. . . ”). 5 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed R ule , 63 FR 18754, 18766/1

- 18767/1 (April 15, 1998)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 86 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• The EPA “presumptively concludes” that known, probable and possible carcinogens (Group A, B and C pollutants) “should not be categorized as threshold pollutants.”
• Pollutants for which there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion on carcinogenicity (Group D pollutants) will be evaluated on a case - by

- case basis.
• Pollutants classified as non

- carcinogens (Group E pollutants) are “presumptively considered” to be threshold pollutants. 6 Health threshold standards may not be set for pollutants that are carcinogenic. 7 The EPA has exercised its discr etionary authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) in a handful of prior actions setting emissions standards for other major source categories, including the emissions standards issued in 2004 for commercial and industrial boilers and process heaters, which we re vacated on other grounds by the U.S. United S tates Court of Appeals for the
D istrict of Columbia Circuit. In the proposals for both the Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP, 63 FR at 18765 (April 15, 1998) and Lime Manufacturing NES HAP, 67 FR at 78054 (December 20, 2002), the EPA invoked CAA section 112(d)(4)

6 The current weight

- of

- evidence under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessments, which replaced the 1986 cancer guidelines, recommends the following cancer hazard descriptors: “Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,” “Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential,” and “Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans” (which are considered equivalent to the 1986 groups A,B,C,D and E respectively). 7 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combus tion Sources NESHAP Proposed R ule , 63 FR 18754, 18765/3 ( “ The EPA presumptively applies section 112(d)(4) only to HAP’s that are not carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that carcinogens be con sidered nonthreshold pollutants” )
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 87 of 444 Formatted: Normal for HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility. In those proposed actions, the EPA concluded that HCl had an established health threshold (in those cases it was interp reted as the reference concentration for chronic effects or RfC) and was not classified as a human carcinogen. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk, the availability of information on noncarcinogenic effects and the limited potential he alth risk associated with the discrete units being regulated, the EPA concluded that it was within the EPA’s discretion to set an emissions standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl under the circumstances of those actions.
In more recent actions, the EPA noted that HCl was a threshold pollutant, but decided not to propose a health

- based emission standard for HCl emissions under CAA section 112(d)(4) for Portland Cement facilities (74 FR at 21154; May 6, 2009) or for Boilers an d Process Heaters (75 FR at 32032; June 4, 2010) for other reasons . To date, the EPA has not implemented a NESHAP that applied the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4) to HF or Cl 2 . 8 Since any emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) must consider the established health threshold level, with an

8 The EPA has not c lassified HF or Cl 2 gas with respect to carcinogenicity. However, at this time the a gency is not aware of any data that would suggest either of these HAP are carcinogens.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 88 of 444 Formatted: Normal ample margin of safety, in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rulemaking the EPA has considered the adverse health effects of the HAP acid gases, HCl, Cl 2 and HF. The standard approach for determining potential haz ards of a pollutant has been to use a health benchmark below which effects are not expected to occur. Described below are the health effects and benchmarks for HCl, Cl 2 and HF and the rationale for their designation as threshold pollutants. It is important to note that if exposure levels as proposed by the emissions limits in this proposed BSCP manufacturing rulemaking are achieved, the adverse health effects described below will not be of concern for emissions from these source categories. Hydrogen chlorid e is corrosive to the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation , altered estrus cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. The EPA***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 89 of 444 Formatted: Normal conducted a toxicity assessment of chronic inhalation exposure to HCl and has established a n RfC of 20 microgram s per cubic
meter ( μ g/m 3 )
. 9 An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups 10 ) that is likely to be without an
app reciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The EPA RfC for HCl was based on respiratory toxicity observed in animals
. An uncertainty factor of 300 was applied to the lowest adverse effect level noted in animals. This assessment did not take in to account effects associated with acute exposure . 11 The EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity. With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we know the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is not expected to ca use chronic respiratory effects.
• Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. The one occupational study of which we are aware found no evidence of carcinogenicity.

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
. Hy drogen chloride (CASRN 7647

- 01

- 0) . 1995. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm . Accessed on April 11, 2014. 10 “ Sensitive subgroups ” may refer to particular life stages, such as children or the elderly or to those with particular medical conditions, such as asthmatics. 11 California EPA considered acute toxicity and established a 1

- hour reference exposure level (REL) of 2.1 mg/m 3 . An RE L is the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 90 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing the health ef fects of acute exposure to HCl
. 12 Based on this information , the a gency believes it is reasonable to classify HCl as a Group D pollutant. 13 Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as discussed above, the a gency considers HCl to be a threshold pollutant. The effects of acute exposure to humans and animals to Cl 2 have been well characterized. Similar to HCl, Cl 2 is a well

- known sensory irritant (capable of eliciting sensory irritation) and the most sensitive target for toxicity in humans and animals is the respiratory system. Acute exposures to low levels of Cl 2 ( approximately 3 to 40 milligram s per cubic meter ( mg/m 3 ) ) have been shown to cause nose, eyes and throat irritation in humans. Acute exposure to high levels (above 40 mg/m 3 ) of Cl 2 in humans can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long

- term) exposure to Cl 2 gas in workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have

12 See Californi a Office of Health Hazard Assessment. Acute Toxicity Summary for Hydrogen Chloride
. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112 , EPA, 2008. 13 See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Revi ew Draft ; EPA

– 600/8

– 87/041A, August 1994.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 91 of 444 Formatted: Normal reported decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation,

non - neoplastic nasal lesions and respiratory epithelial hyper plasia from chronic inhalation exposure to Cl 2 . There is no evidence that Cl 2 causes reproductive or developmental effects in animals or humans. A few studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find any evidence that Cl 2 is carcinogenic. The EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl 2 gas as to its carcinogenicity. The human health value for Cl 2 is an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSD R ) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) of 0.00015 μg/m 3

. 14 The MRL is defined as an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a specified duration of exposure. 15 The MRL was based on respiratory toxicity (nasal lesions) observed in a chronic inhalation exposure (1 year) in monkeys. An uncertainty factor of 30 was applied to the MRL to account for uncertainties in extrapolating results from animal to humans and to account f or

14 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36
. 15 Inhalation MRLs are used in noncancer assessments when IRIS RfCs are not available because their concept, definition and derivation are philosophically consistent (though not identical) with the basis for EPA’s RfCs ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99 pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf )
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 92 of 444 Formatted: Normal human variability. Since the effects of acute exposure of humans and animals to Cl 2 have been well characterized, t he ATSDR toxicity profile for Cl 2 also included acute MRL. With respect to the potential health effects of Cl 2 , we know the following:

• Chr onic exposure to concentrations at or below the MRL is not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.
• The acute effects of Cl 2 have been well characterized in humans.
• Studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find any evidence that Cl 2 is car cinogenic. Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how Cl 2 reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as discussed above, the a gency presumptively considers Cl 2 to be a threshold pollutant. There is a significant body of scientific literature addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HF
. 16 Hydrogen fluoride is a respiratory tract irritant capable of causing severe tissue damage in the respiratory system. Acute (short

term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory effects in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Severe ocular irritation and dermal burns may occur following eye or skin exposure in humans. Because the

16 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen Fluoride. 2003. Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 93 of 444 Formatted: Normal
toxic effects of HF are, to a large extent, based on the fluoride ion rather than the hydrogen ion, it is noteworthy to mention that the major health effect of chronic inhalation exposure to high levels of fluoride is skeletal fluorosis. In skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in t he bone progressively over many years and can cause a variety of symptoms including stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe

cases , the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify , resulting in muscle impairment and pain. Chronic inhalation
expo sure to HF (with particulate fluorides) in the aluminum industry has been associated with increased risk of asthma. Chronic oral exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause dental and bone fluorosis. Although the existing toxicological database on fluoride does not provide strong evidence for the consideration of fluoride as an essential element, several organi zations consider fluoride an important dietary element for humans. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has derived adequate intake values ranging from 0.01 to 4 milligrams per day to reduce the occurrence of dental caries
. 17

17 IOM. 1997. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin Dand fluoride. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 94 of 444 Formatted: Normal
The World Health Organization (WHO) considers fluoride to be “essential” because it considered “resistance to dental caries to be a physiologically important function
. ” 18 With regard to HF carcinogenic potential , the ATSDR Public Health Statement document states that “carcinogenicity via inha lation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature
. ” The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity. The chronic inhalation noncancer human health value the EPA uses for HF is the Reference Exposure Level (REL) REL of 0.014 mg/m 3 derived by California EPA (CalEPA). 19 CalEPA defines the REL as a concentration level at (or below) which no adverse health effects are anticipated for specific exposure durations, a concept that is substantially simil ar to EPA's non

- cancer dose

- response assessment perspective and we , therefore , use it as an alternate value in the absence of an Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS ) RfC. 20 REL are designed to protect the

Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. www4.nationalacademies.org/iom/iomhome.nsf
. 18 WHO. 2002. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. E nvironmental Health Criteria Number 227. http://www.inchem.org/pages/ehc.html
. 19 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen Fluoride. 2003. Available at http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270
. 20 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has developed dose

- response assessments for many substances, based both on carcinogenicity and health effects other than cancer. The process for***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 95 of 444 Formatted: Normal most sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety. The REL was based on minimal changes in bone density (skeletal fluorosis) in the workplace by Derryberry et al. 21 Cal EPA states that major strengths of the key study on which the chronic REL is based is the observation o f health effects in a large group of workers exposed over many years and the identification of no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). The primary uncertainty in the study is th e lack of comprehensive health effects examination. Another source of

conce rn is the potential for greater susceptibility of children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone growth at early lifestages. This effect applies with particular importance to children’s teeth since it has been established that exc essive exposure to fluoride during tooth development in infancy and childhood causes dental fluorosis. To account for uncertainties, the CalEPA REL included a factor of 10 for intraspecies differences (which also accounts for variation in kinetics between children and adults). In addition, the chronic inhalation REL is lower than the oral chronic REL and the

developing these assessments is similar to tha t used by the EPA to develop IRIS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. The EPA may use CalEPA values in the absence of an IRIS value. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf
. 21 Derryberry OM, Barthol omew MD, Fleming RBL. 1963. “Fluoride exposure and worker health.” Arch Environ Health 6:503

- 514.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 96 of 444 Formatted: Normal California Public Health Guidance for fluoride in drinking water, which are based on lifetime exposure and protective of infants and children. CalEPA also considered the acute toxicity of HF and established a 1

- hour REL of 0.24 mg/m 3 based on mild eye and respiratory irritation. With respect to the potential health effects of HF, we know the following:

• Chronic exposure at or below the REL is not expecte d to cause adverse effects.
• There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic potential of HF. With regard to the carcinogenic potential evidence available, the ATSDR Public Health Statement document on HF states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting in the existing literature
. ” 22

• There is significant evidence on the health effects of acute exposure to HF allowing for the derivation of an acute health benchmark. Based on the nega tive carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how HF reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as discussed above, the a gency considers HF to be a threshold pollutant. 2. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its discretio n whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? It is clear the T he EPA may exercise its discretionary authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) only with respect to

22 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp? id=1079&tid=36
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 97 of 444 Formatted: Normal pollutants with a health threshold. Where there is an established threshold, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it to weigh additional factors, beyond any established health threshold, in making a judgment whe ther to set a standard for a specific pollutant based on the threshold or instead follow the traditional path of developing a MACT standard after determining a MACT floor. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion for a threshold pollutant for a given source category, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it to take into account factors such as the following:

• The availability of data to set the health

- based standard;
• Co

- benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard , such as reductio ns in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutant s;
• T he potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the pollutant ; and
• T he potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with similar biologic al endpoints, from either the same or other source categories, where the concentration of the threshold pollutant emitted from the given source category is below the threshold
. If the EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a standard based on a h ealth threshold, the a gency must develop emission standards that will ensure the public will not be exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP emitted from the source category in question in excess of the health threshold, with an ample margin of safety
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 98 of 444 Formatted: Normal

a. Av ailability of Data to Determine a Standard In determining whether to set a health

- based standard, the EPA considered whether sufficient data for a particular industry are available to determine such a standard. In previous rules, the EPA declined to set a health

- based standard, based in part on the unavailability of data to determine a standard. 23 However, for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , because of the relatively small number of facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility

- specific information, including tunnel kiln locations and operating characteristics and stack parameters , available for all BSCP facilities to assess the feasibility of health

based standards in this rule. Such inform ation enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling necessary to establish a health

based emission limit for acid gases. 24 Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough information to determine the health

- based emission standards for the acid gases HF , HCl and Cl 2 for the BSCP manufacturing industry. As discussed in further detail below, these limits have been developed to ensure that

23 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010) (“[W]e have concluded that we do not have sufficient information at this time to establish what the health

- based emission standards would be for HCl or the other acid gase s . ”)
. 24 For more information, see the technical memorandum , “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category ” , ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 99 of 444 Formatted: Normal exposure is below the health threshold for each facility and also ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health

concerns. 25
b. Co

- benefits We also considered whether setting technology

- based MACT standards for HF, HCl and Cl 2 from BSCP plants would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) . Although MACT standards may directly address only HAP, not criteria pollutants, Congress did recognize, in the legislative history to CAA section 112(d)(4), that MACT standards would have the collateral benefit of controlling criteria pollutants as well and viewed this as an important benefit of the air toxics program. 26 Therefore, even where the EPA concludes a HAP has a health threshold, the a gency may consider such co - benefits as a factor in determining whether to exercise its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). The additional nationwide reductions of SO 2 that would be attributable to BSCP MACT standards for acid gases are estimated to be only 4,300 tpy in the third year following promulgation of

25 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 ( Sept. Sept ember 9, 2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short

- term emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic health

- based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health concerns .”)
. 26 See S. Rep. No. 101

– 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. a t 172
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 100 of 444 Formatted: Normal the proposed BSCP standards. This reduction is su bstantially lower than the co

- benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a health

based limit , 27 and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit
.
c. Ecosystem Impacts In addition to potential health impacts, the EPA has evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when considering whether to exercise discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). 28 The agency applied the environmental risk screen methodology that it uses in the Risk and Technology Program

27 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970 ( September 9, 2010)

– Co

- benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule . 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. The re, EPA declined to set a health

based standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO 2 and other HAP gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO 2 alone attr ibutable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons per year” and discussing both direct SO 2 effects and effects of SO 2 as a precursor to PM 2.5 ) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl 2 ), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydroge n fluoride (HF))] are also controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when considering a health

- based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT Final Rule , 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this issue and continues to believe that the co

- benefits are significant and provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate to exercise he r discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010)

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 340,000 tons per year of SO 2 and unspecified redu ctions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury Hg . See also MATS Proposed Rule , 76 FR 24976, 25051/1

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO 2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and mercury Hg
. 28 See Portland C ement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54986/3 ( September 9, 2010). Formatted: Highlight***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 101 of 444 Formatted: Normal under section 112 of the CAA to evaluate the potential for chronic exposure to acid gases emitted by BSCP facilities to cause phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants. The environmental screen uses air concentrations from the
HE M

- 3 model used in the human health exposure and risk analysis. We take these concentrations and derive an area

- weighted average offsite annual ambient air concentration for each pollutant. The

area - weighted average concentrations are compared directly to
t he appropriate ecological benchmarks for a given pollutant by dividing the area

- weighted average concentration by the appropriate ecological benchmark. The result is called a hazard quotient (HQ). An HQ greater than 1 indicated that the area

weighted avera ge concentration exceeded the ecological benchmark. For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the acid gases HCl and HF around each BSCP facility. Although Cl 2 may also be emitted from BSCP facilities, chlorine gas is so reactive that it is not expected to remain in the environment very long after it is released. Chlorine immediately reacts with both organic and inorganic materials that it comes into contact with . Chlorine undergoes direct photolysis in the air and its half

- life in the troposphere is on the order of several minutes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 102 of 444 Formatted: Normal Therefore, it was not considered in the environmental risk screening for the BSCP Manufacturing source category. For HCl, the environ mental risk screen indicated that the

area - weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In add ition, there was only one facility with a modeled concentration of HCl at an offsite receptor location that exceeded the ecological benchmark and that was at a single receptor. For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the

area - weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks
. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF a t offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was less than one percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects. d. Cumulative Effects The EPA may consider the availability of information on emissions from co

- l ocated and nearby sources and consider if it***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 103 of 444 Formatted: Normal
is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects from emissions from the s ources in the category when combined with other emissions from other sources that are co - located or located nearby. Relevant emissions may include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects. Through the BSCP industry ’s responses to the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey , we have substantial information on the locations of BSCP plants and the levels of HF, HCl and Cl 2 emitted from those plants. BSCP plants are not commonly co

located with any other type of operation s. They are typically located near the source of the raw materials on large tracts of land from which raw materials are extracted. This provides an additional buffer between the BSCP plants and the surrounding

area. B ecause of th e relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from the BSCP plants are located clos e to the facility property line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non - BSCP emissions, the location and emissions associated with other sources not in the BSC P manufacturing M anufacturing source category are far less certain. While the EPA 2008 survey and EPA 2010 survey data for BSCP facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of nearby other facilities, suc h as those in the NEI, have not***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 104 of 444 Formatted: Normal undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions would may contain a great deal of significant uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because of the large footprint of these pla nts BSCP facilities , their rural locations and the BSCP risks being confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the combined emissions of HF, HCl or Cl 2 from BSCP facilities and nearby other sources would result in substantial cumulative health and environmental effects
. 3. How did the EPA set the level of the standard? Based on the EPA’s findings, including the minimal cumulative health and environmental effects expected from co

located and nearby sources, the mini mal co

- benefits of setting technology

- based MACT standards for acid gases, the minimal ecosystem impacts from setting a health

- based standard in place of a MACT standard and the availability of data to determine a health

- based standard, the EPA is proposin g to exercise its discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because th e circumstances in this case differ from those previous***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 105 of 444 Formatted: Normal
considerations. We request comment on the analysis and conclusions regarding setting health

- based standard s . Following from the EPA ’s determin ation that a health

- based standard is appropriate, the sta ndard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health effects on which the threshold is based.
• There must be no observable adverse effect.
• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental effects than the MACT standard that would otherwise be established.
• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions do not pose a health risk.
CAA section 112(d)(4) expressly states that the health

based standard must be set at the threshold level “with an ample margin of safety.” In addition, the legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health

- based emission limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no observable e ffects occur, with an ample margin of safety. 29 Because the statute requires an ample margin of safety, it would be reasonable to set any CAA section 112(d)(4) emission standard for a pollutant with a health threshold at a level that at least assures that, for the sources in the controlled category or subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold

29 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32030/2 (June 4, 2010), citing S.Rep. 101

– 228 at 171

– 72.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 106 of 444 Formatted: Normal
is based. 30 The legislative history also states that establishing

a CAA section 1 12(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT standard “shall not result in adverse environmental effects which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated.” 31 The EPA’s decision to exercise its discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4) will not be used to e xclude sources from compliance. The EPA does not believe that a plain reading of the statute supports the establishment of an approach in which the EPA excludes specific facilities from complying with emissions limits if the facility demonstrates that its emissions do not pose a health risk. While CAA section 112(d)(4) authorizes the EPA to consider the level of the health threshold for pollutants which have an established threshold, that threshold may be considered when establishing emissions standards und er CAA section 112(d). Therefore, the EPA must still establish emissions standards under CAA section 112(d) even if it chooses to exercise its discretion to consider an established health threshold. 32

30 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010). 31 See Portland C ement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54985/2 (September 9, 2010), citing S.Rep. 101

- 228 at 171

- 72. 32 See Boiler MACT Final Rule , 76 FR 15608, 1 5643/3

- 14644/1 (March 21, 2011). See also MATS Final Rule , 77 FR 9304, 9406/1 ( February 16, 2012) (same point using nearly identical text).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 107 of 444 Formatted: Normal As part of the development of the proposed standards, we have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, including the size and operating hours of each tunnel kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes ( e.g. , stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each tunnel kiln stack. To develo p a health

- based emission limit, both long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the BSCP manufacturing source category were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM

- 3 version 1.3.1). The HEM

– 3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) c onducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers of the modeled sources and (3) estimating individual and population

- level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose

- response information. The air dispersion model used by the HEM

– 3 model (AERMOD) is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities. To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates , HEM

- 3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 one year (2011) of hourly***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 108 of 444 Formatted: Normal surface and upper air observations for 824 meteorological stations, selected t o provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations. 33 In addition, for each census block, the censu s library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchma rks are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. The chronic and acute values for the acid gases evaluated in this assessment are presented in Tables 7 and 8 of this preamble, respectively. Further information on the development and sources of these benchmarks and the overall modeling approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturin g Source Category” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291.

33 USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/download

human

- exposure - model

- hem
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 109 of 444 Formatted: Normal
**Table 7**  **— Dose**  **- Response Values for Chronic Inhalation Exposure to**  **Acid Gases**

**Pollutant CAS Number**  **a RfC**  **(mg/m 3**  **) Source**  Hydro gen chlori de 7647010 0.02 IRIS Hydro gen fluori de 7664393 0.014 C alEPA Chlorine 7782505 0.00015 ATSDR

a Chemical Abstract Services identification number. For groups of compounds that lack a CAS number, we have used a surrogate 3

- digit identifier corresponding to the group’s position on the CAA list of HAP.

**Table 8**  **— Dose**  **- Resp**  **onse Values for Acute Inhalation Exposure to Acid Gases**  **a**

**Pollutant CAS**  **Number AEGL**  **- 1**  **(1 -**  **hr) (mg/m**  **3 )**  **AEGL -**  **2 (1**  **- hr)**  **(mg/m 3**  **) ERPG**  **- 1**  **(mg/m 3**  **) ERPG**  **- 2**  **(mg/m 3**  **) REL**  Hydro gen chlori de 7647010 2.7 33 4.5 30 2.1 Hydro gen fluori de 7664393 0.82 20 1.6 16 0.24 Chlorine 7782505 1.5 5.8 2.9 8.7 0.21

a AEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level, ERPG = Emergency Response Planning Guideline
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each a cid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. Chronic noncan cer health hazards are expressed by comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by a reference level ( e.g. , the RfC). For a given acid gas, exposures at or below the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 110 of 444 Formatted: Normal reference level (HQ less than o r equal to 1) are not likely to cause adverse health effects. As exposures increase above the reference level (HQs increasingly greater than 1), the potential for adverse effects increases. For a typical risk assessment where multiple pollutants are co

- emi tted, we aggregate noncancer HQs of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or (where this information is absent) that affect the same target organ. This process creates, for each target organ , a specific hazard index ( TOSHI ) defined as the sum of HQ s for individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system. Because we performed HEM

3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at BSCP facil ities, but a 250 tpy level of HCl

- equivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not exceeded as long as the HCl

- equivalent emissions do not exceed 250 tpy. It is important to note that this emission limit is only appli cable to the sources in this source category and should not be considered for sources other than those included in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for other acid gases are determined by the ratio of the chronic RfCs to that for HCl, such that the HCl

e quivalent emissions for HF are 175 tpy and for Cl 2 are 1.9 tpy.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 111 of 444 Formatted: Normal For the assessment of potential health risks from acute exposures to the acid gases, we performed a screening assessment using conservative assumptions that in combination approximate a
worst

- case exposure. The acute exposure scenario assumed worst

case meteorology (from 1 one year of local meteorology) and that a person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during this same worst

- case 1

- hour period, but no nearer to the source than 100 meters , which is conservative for this industry given our understanding of the locations of these facilities
. Screening for potentially significant acute inhalation exposures also followed the HQ approach. We divided the maximum estimated acute exposure by each available short

- term threshold value to develop an array of HQ values rel ative to the various acute endpoints and thresholds. In general, when none of these HQ values are greater than 1 , there is low potential for acute risk. In those cases where HQ values above 1 are seen, additional information is used to determine if there i s a potential for significant acute risks. Additional information for facilities in the BSCP manufacturing source category included using aerial imagery of the facilities to determine the maximum offsite 1

- hour concentrations. Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic dose

- response values, the 250 tpy level does not necessarily***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 112 of 444 Formatted: Normal
ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl and Cl 2 model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ values exceeding 1 . For HF, we estimate that four of the 91 facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL , with the highest being 2. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL

- 1) value for HF. To assure that no single hour source emit s more than the 250 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour , we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 250 tpy ( 57 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent emissions )
. It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds are developed from back

- calculating the emissions that wo uld result in an HQ of 1 at the worst

- case facility. Potential risks at other facilities (not the worst

- case facility) are predicted to be well below 1.
Because we had site

- specific data on the operation of each tunnel kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure that (1) the health

- based emission limit cited above for BSCP facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is b ased. In addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions associated with BSCP kilns, based on results from the EPA’s***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 113 of 444 Formatted: Normal environmental risk screen methodology outlined above , are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact. Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the health

based emission limit by determining their facility

- wide HCl, HF and Cl 2 emissions, calculating the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF and Cl 2 using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HCl

- equi valent values to calculate the total HCl

- equivalent emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . For more information on the development of the health

- based standard see the technical memorandum “ R isk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emissions Limit ation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category ” in Docket ID N o.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291. For more information on the calculation of an HCl

- equivalent val ue, see the technical memorandum

“ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP
NESHAP ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. K
. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. T he EPA is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for certain***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 114 of 444 Formatted: Normal
HAP from cert ain BSCP manufacturing sources is not feasible because the application of measurement methodology to certain sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Specifically, t he EPA is proposing a work practice standard for BSCP peri odic kilns in lieu of emission limit s for acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl 2 ), Hg and non - Hg HAP metals . The EPA is also proposing a work practice standard for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of a dioxin/furan emission limit. The rationale f or these work practice standards is discussed in the paragraphs below. We request comment on how the work practice standards were developed and the proposed standards themselves. 1. Periodic Kilns

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Emission Standard Overview . Periodic kilns are batch process units that are used for firing BSCP under a carefully controlled environment. The large majority of BSCP are fired in tunnel kilns, which operate continuously and are much more energy

- efficient t han periodic kilns when producing BSCP of a uniform type, such as standard building bricks. In contrast, periodic kilns can readily accommodate variations in firing temperature profiles and cycle times to match the requirements of a wide variety of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 115 of 444 Formatted: Normal product s. As a result, periodic kilns generally are reserved for specialty products and typically are used only when necessary. 34 In the BSCP industry, periodic kilns are classified as either beehive kilns or shuttle kilns, but all operate generally the same. A ba tch of unfired bricks or shapes is loaded into the cold kiln, the kiln is sealed and the burners are ignited and controlled to carefully increase the temperature according to a time

- temperature profile specific to the products being manufactured. Once firi ng is complete, the temperature in the kiln is reduced, the burners are extinguished and the fired product is allowed to cool. When the product is at or near ambient temperature, the kiln is opened and the fired products are removed. 35 Based on responses to the 2008 EPA survey sent to the BSCP industry, periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 to 168 hours per cycle and typically take 48 to 58 hours. These cycle times cover the period beginning when the burners are first ignited and ending when the burners are cut off. It may take an additional 8 to 10 hours for the fired products to cool before they can be removed from the kiln. 36

34 See the mem orandum titled “ Rationale for Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. 35 Id. 36 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 116 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Emissions . Based on limited data from the testing of three BSCP periodic kilns using Method 320 (Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy), emissions of HF and HCl begin within the first 5 to 10 hours of the firing cycle and continue throu ghout the firing cycle. Emissions are highly variable and can experience large spikes at various points throughout the cycle. In addition, it is likely that emissions continue beyond the completion of the firing cycle, as the fired products cool. HF

concen trations in the kiln exhaust can still exceed 100 parts per million at the end of the firing cycle. 37 Testing Periodic Kilns for Emissions of HF and HCl . The conventional compliance test requirement for most emission sources is to test each source for three 1

- hour test runs. This requirement is based on the assumptions that the source operates continuously and that emissions are relatively constant. However, there generally are some variations in emissions. For this reason, the source is tested over three se parate runs and the results are averaged to generate a number that is representative of typical emissions. 38 Unlike continuous sources, emissions from BSCP periodic kilns can vary significantly over the course of one cycle.

37 Id. 38 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 117 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Because of these variations and t he fact that emissions begin shortly after the start of the firing cycle and continue beyond the end of the cycle for an undetermined period of time, the conventional compliance test requirement of three 1

- hour test

runs cannot accurate ly measure emissions . Instead , the only way to accurately determine the total emissions from a BSCP periodic kiln cycle is to measure the emissions throughout the entire firing cycle and continuing beyond the completion of the cycle until emission levels become negligible. Te sting for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are either much higher or much lower than actual emissions, depending on when during the kiln cycle emissions are sampled. 39 Because of the variations during firing cycles and variations acros s the tests, sampling a single kiln cycle is not adequate for characterizing periodic kiln emissions, so more than one kiln cycle would have to be tested. Given that BSCP periodic kiln cycle times typically range from 48 to 58 hours, each periodic kiln wou ld need to be tested for more than 100 hours in order to determine an emission rate that is representative of normal operating conditions. Also, because BSCP periodic kilns are used to fire specialty products that may have significantly differently time

- te mperature profiles, it

39 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 118 of 444 Formatted: Normal would be necessary to test the same kiln multiple times to characterize emissions from different types of products. 40
Test Methods . The standard reference methods for measuring emissions of HF and HCl are EPA Methods 26 and 26A. These methods are reliable and relatively inexpensive. However, if emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns, breakthrough of HCl can occur. That is, the testing apparatus reaches its capacity for abso rbing HCl and subsequent HCl in the emissions are not captured. It is not known if breakthrough has occurred until a breakthrough analysis is performed after completion of the test. If it is determined that breakthrough has occurred, retesting is
necessary . Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout periodic kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover samples. 41 An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduc t the tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320. With FTIR, HCl breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides near real

- time emissions data. However, as noted in the following section, the cost for testing by FTIR is expensive,

40 Id. 41 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 119 of 444 Formatted: Normal
similar t o the cost for testing by Methods 26 or 26A throughout an entire cycle. 42 Emission Test Costs . The cost for testing by FTIR is estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50

- hour kiln cycle. If it were determined that the variations in emissions fro m cycle to cycle were significant, it would be necessary to test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the testing cost to almost $100,000 and testing for a third cycle would triple the cost to almost $150,000 (2009 dollars) . In addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurred for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be tested using a manual test method ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5 or 17). If testing were extended into the cooling period, the costs would be even higher. 43
To address the potential economic impact of a requirement to test periodic kilns , we conducted a cost

- to

- sales assessment. (See the memorandum “Economic Feasibility of Testing Periodic Brick Kilns” in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 .) T he conclusion that testing is not economically feasible for most of the kilns is quite clear. Over half o f the kilns included in the

42 Id. 43 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 120 of 444 Formatted: Normal analysis have estimated co st

- to

- sales percentages greater than 3 percent. The economic analysis estimates that for the upper end of the closure estimate for the other kilns when the costs are between 3 percent and 5 percent , one - quarter of the firms will close. This possibility of closure makes this level of costs for testing not economically feasible. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Periodic Kilns . CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, consiste nt with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this context to apply when “the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Because of the technological and economic limitations described above, we conclude that it is not practicabl e to establish numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for periodic kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures that are economically infeasible for the BSCP industry.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 121 of 444 Formatted: Normal Conseque ntly, we are proposing a work practice standard for BSCP periodic kilns under CAA section 112(h). 44
b. Development of Work Practice Standard Information provided to the EPA indicates there are six operational factors that have a direct bearing on HAP emissions from BSCP periodic kilns: t emperature, firing cycle, product quality, automatic control, combustion control and kiln load/kiln technology. 45 These six operational factors and their impact o n HAP emissions are described further in the paragraphs below. Temperature . Various scientific test methods are used to study the reactions in brick clays during heating. Differential thermal analysis, thermo gravimetric analysis and simultaneous thermal analysis are techniques used to show the oxidation, de

hydroxylation and vitrification reactions, as well as the weight loss characteristics of the material. Knowledge of these reaction characteristics would enable the brick manufactu rer to design the kiln firing cycle for the optimization of the product quality and to minimize process losses. Ensuring good product quality and minimizing process losses would eliminate the need for additional production firing cycles to meet the quantit ies

44 Id. 45 See the memorandum titled “ Work Practice Standards f or Periodic Kiln Operations ,” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 122 of 444 Formatted: Normal demanded by the market, thereby avoiding the generation of additional HAP emissions. 46 Firing Cycle . Each periodic firing process in the brick industry is unique and is governed by the nature of the brick clay material being fired. For example, some sha le materials have higher carbon and sulfur levels and require a longer “dwell” at the oxidation temperature range from 1 , 600 °F to 1 , 700 °F , while other clay materials are more refractory in nature and require higher final firing temperatures in order to d evelop the desired finished color and the physical properties to meet the ASTM standards required by the market. These factors influence the period of time in the oxidation stages, as well as the time required in the final “soak” stage of the firing cycle. HAP emissions have also been shown to take place in these stages of the firing cycle. 47 Consequently, knowledge of these factors is key to avoiding any additional emissions during these stages. Product Quality . The time and temperature relationships previo usly described affect the ultimate quality and acceptability of the finished product. An “over

- fired” product would produce excessive shrinkage, color variation and process losses. This type of firing cycle would likely produce higher

46 Id. 47 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 123 of 444 Formatted: Normal HAP emissions per ton of ware fired. Similarly, an under

- fired product would not meet durability standards required by the ASTM standards and the market. While under

- firing the product would produce less HAP emissions, more product would have to be fired to meet production req uirements, which would lead to more HAP emissions per sellable ton of ware. Therefore, any work practice standard would need to be a practice that produces the best product quality and the minimum HAP emissions. This optimized work practice would entail de veloping an optimum firing cycle for each particular brick clay body. 48 Automatic Control . The design of the kiln firing system influences the brick manufacturers’ ability to achieve repeatable, maximum product quality results. Most periodic kiln operators in the brick industry have used modern programmable logic controller (PLC) technology for some time. These systems enable the brick manufacturer to program the kiln firing temperature over a well

- established, optimized time cycle, to achieve repeatable res ults. Modern high

- velocity burner technology is commonly employed. 49 Achieving repeatable, maximum product quality results would eliminate the need to fire

48 Id. 49 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 124 of 444 Formatted: Normal additional product to meet production requirements, thereby avoiding the generation of additional HAP emissions. Combustion Control . The use of PLC technology enables the rate of gas delivery to the burner system to be accurately programmed, to ensure that each stage of the firing cycle is accurately controlled and to avoid over

- firing or under

- firing. Th e measuring devices that are part of the combustion equipment enable the kiln operator to adjust the air

- to

- fuel ratios in each stage, to achieve the optimum combustion efficiency needed to produce the desired product. In this way, the production of
poor q uality, rejects and losses is minimized. Technology that does not achieve this would produce higher losses and poor quality, resulting in additional production firing cycles being required to meet the quantities demanded by the market and additional HAP em issions. 50 Kiln Load/Kiln Technology . For proper combustion, it is important that the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as overloading could cause improper combustion and lost product, resulting in additional production firing cycles and additional HAP emiss ions. To ensure proper firing, the following parameters should be addressed: 51

50 Id. 51 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 125 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• Employment of draft controls on exhaust fans to adjust exhaust volume flow.
• Measurement, monitoring and control of kiln pressure by adjustment of kiln exhaust.
• Measurement and mo nitoring of kiln temperatures.
• Measurement and control of air and fuel flow to the combustion system. Work Practice Standard . Based on these six operational factors, the following work practice standard is proposed under CAA section 112(h): 52

• Each facility would have to d evelop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln, by programming the time and temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on a log sheet.
• Each facility would have to l abe l each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle.
• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the maximum load and document the total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.
• Each facility would have to d evelop and implement maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following items: o C alibration of temperature measuring devices o Controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios o Controls that regulate firing cycles
• Each facility would have to d evelop and maint ain records required for each periodic kiln, including logs to document the proper opera tion of the periodic kilns and logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the standard.

52 See the email titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the proposed BSCP rulemaking.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 126 of 444 Formatted: Normal
2. Dioxin /Furan Emissions

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard The significant majority of measured dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are BDL and , the EPA considers it impracticable to reliably measure dioxin/furan emissions from these units. (Note: Both dioxin/furan emissions and detection levels are in t erms of 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin ( TCDD ) toxic equivalents ( TEQ ) .) The fact that the majority of measurements are so low casts doubt on whether the tests accurately measured the true levels of emissions. The dioxin s /furan s for each run w ere compa red to one

- half the RDL developed for utilities. 53 Overall, 15 out of 18 test runs ( 83 percent of the entire test run dataset ) contained dioxin/furan estimates below one

- half of the RDL. Based on the difficulties with accurate measurements at the levels of dioxins/furans encountered from tunnel kilns and the economics associated with units trying to apply measurement methodology to test for compliance with numerical limits, we are conclud ing that application of measurement methodology is not practicable and

are proposing to set a work practice standard under CAA section

53 Johnson, S. Determination of “non

- detect” from EPA Method 29 (multi

- metals) and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of MACT floors versus establishing work practice standards
. June 5, 2014
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 127 of 444 Formatted: Normal 112(h). We request comment on the rationale for setting work practice standards. b. Work Practice Standard The proposed work practice standard described below ensures that equipment is maintained and run so as to minimize emissions of dioxins and furans. The work practice would involve maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable), tuning the specific burner type to optimize combu stion, keeping records of each burner tune

- up and submitting a report for each tune

- up conducted. Dioxins/furans are products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and optimizing combustion limits the formation of PIC , thereby minimizing emissions of dioxins/fura ns. We are proposing that t he tune

- up must be conducted no less frequently than every 36 calendar months. Initial compliance with the work practice standard of maintaining burners must occur within 180 days of the compliance date of the BSCP manufacturing rule . The initial compliance demonstration for the work practice standard of conducting a tune

- up must occur no later than 42 months (36 months plus 180 days) from the effective date of the final BSCP manufacturing rule
. We request comment on the proposed work practice standards.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 128 of 444 Formatted: Normal

L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements? As noted in section III.B of this preamble, tunnel kilns typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a tunnel kiln involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the kiln to th e proper operational temperature for manufacturing bricks or structural clay products. Shutdown of a tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. When the temperatu re of the kiln is below the proper operational temperature, BSCP manufacturers typically do not push new product into the kiln, so the emissions are not expected to be the same during startup and shutdown as during normal operations. While the kiln is heat ing to the proper operational temperature during startup or cooling from the operational temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust flow rate, moisture content, O 2 concentration and pressure are also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown progresses, as the kiln does not heat or cool evenly. The fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 129 of 444 Formatted: Normal relatively steady

- state conditions needed for valid , accurate results over three test runs using the measurement methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, most of the emission limit formats chosen for this proposed BSCP manufacturing r ule are not appropriate for use during periods other than normal operation. For example, i f there is no throughout in the kiln, emission limits that are in a mass per throughput format would be essentially meaningless. In addition,
t he concentration based

- standards are corrected to a specified O 2 concentration to avoid the use of dilution air to lower the measured concentration , but during startup and shutdown, the O 2 concentration in the kiln exhaust is likely to fluctuate. This means that even if an owner or operator could conduct an emissions test and measure the O 2 content during startup and shutdown for comparison to the O 2 - corrected emission limit, the fluctuations in O 2 content and other parameters in the kiln mean that the O 2 - corrected emissions are also fluctuating. For tunnel kilns with an APCD, venting the kiln exhaust through the APCD at low temperatures can cause operational problems, including moisture in the bags of a baghouse or solidification of the lime in a DIFF. Therefore, the BSCP owners and operators that responded to the SSM portion of the 2010 EPA***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 130 of 444 Formatted: Normal
survey indicated that they bypass the APCD if the kiln exhaust temperature is below a “low temperature set point.” Based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey , this kiln exhaust temperature ranges from 284 to 400 °F for startup and from 150 to 300 °F for shutdown. All of the EPA survey respondents indicated that no new product is introduced to the kiln as long as the APCD is bypassed, so that emissions are minimized. Therefore , we are proposing wor k practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In ad dition, no bricks or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln thr ough the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. W hen the kil n exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 131 of 444 Formatted: Normal continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of this preamble. For kilns that can meet the proposed standards without an
APCD , there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown
. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no bricks or other product
may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. W hen the re are bricks in the kiln, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section III.G of this preamble.
M
. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements? We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that are adequate to assu re continuous compliance with the requirements of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . These requirements are described in detail in sections III. F and III. G***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 132 of 444 Formatted: Normal of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary to ensure that the emission standards are being met and the work practices are being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and operated properly. Further, t hese proposed requirements ensure compliance with this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule without imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them. We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission limits for HF, HCl, Cl 2 , PM (or non

- Hg HAP metals) and Hg be demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would also require 5

- year repeat performance tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating properly and that its performance has not deteriorated. The majority of test methods that t his proposed BSCP manufacturing rule would require for the performance stack tests ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the proposed emission limits are based were condu cted using these test methods. When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 133 of 444 Formatted: Normal the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule wou ld require continuous parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these parameters within the operating limits established during the performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring requirements because they produce data that will b e useful to both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution. The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed rul e were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the BSCP industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; pressure d rop (or bypass stack damper position) and limestone feeder setting for DLA; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; and activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems. If applicable for demonstrating co mpliance with the HF/HCl/Cl 2 standard, t he kiln monitoring parameter included in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is the kiln process rate. Many of these CPMS are standard features on BSCP tunnel kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other standards for similar industries.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 134 of 444 Formatted: Normal In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for kilns equipped with a FF ( e.g. , a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand

- alone FF) to either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other standards in similar industries. We have also determined that periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . Periodic VE checks have also been proposed for kilns without an add

- on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.
N
. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under
CAA section 112(i)(1), n ew or reconstructed units must be in compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final ru le, whichever is later. ( Th e final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register
. ) Under CAA section 112(i) (3), e xisting sources are allowed up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 135 of 444 Formatted: Normal
with the final rule. For this industry , w e believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, install and test any control system s that may need to be retrofitted onto existing kilns , as well as obtain permits for the use of add

- on controls
. The compliance date for e xisting area sources that subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5). W e are proposing that such sources have 3 years from the date they become major sources to come into compliance , which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing sources discussed in the previous paragraph
. Further, under the current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or operations that meet the definition of new affected source under
t his rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new affected source must be in compl iance upon initial startup.
O
. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the proposed rule? The owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 6 3, as described in Table 8 of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 136 of 444 Formatted: Normal the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enfo rcement of this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the
amount of product fired in the periodic kiln, to address the operational factors that impact HAP emissions from periodic kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard for periodic kilns ( discussed further in section IV. K .1 of this preamble)
. I n addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator keep records and submit a report of each burner tune

- up that is conducted to ensure good combustion practice and minimize the formation of dioxin s /furan s from incomplete combustion , to demonstrate com pliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns (discussed further in section IV. K .2 of this preamble)
. We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep

r ecords and submit a report of each malfunction and the corrective action ta ken as part of the next semiannual compliance report
. The proposed compliance report would provide information on each type of malfunction which occurred during***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 137 of 444 Formatted: Normal the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit. Th is proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, which is discussed further in section III. I of this preamble
. We request comment on ways that we could streamline the recordkeeping and repor ting requirements of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.
P
. How does the proposed rule affect permits? The CAA requires that sources subject to th e BSCP manufacturing rule , once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit issued under an EPA

- approved s tate operating permit program. The operating permit programs are developed under title V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this BSCP manufacturing rule . If the facility is in the last 2 years of an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to incorporate
t he requirement of this BSCP manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the permit.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 138 of 444 Formatted: Normal Q
. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is consider ing ? 1. Alternate Non

- Hg HAP Metals Standards As noted in section IV.E of this preamble, the proposed emission limits for total non

- Hg HAP metals and PM are based on the best performing 27 kilns with a DIFF or DLS/FF ( i.e. , 12 percent of the kilns in the industry). Instead of these proposed limits, w e are considering an alternate approach of setting emissi on limits for total non

- Hg HAP metals and PM based on MACT floors calculated using the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size subcategories , similar to the procedure we followed for setting the Hg limits. The alternate PM limits were calculated using the same procedure as described in section IV.E for Hg . In other words, the kilns were ranked within each subcategory on the basis of their lb/ton PM emissions and the top 12 percent best performing kilns were identified (top 9 large kilns and top 3 small kilns). Both the PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for existing sources were calculated based on those top 12 percent. The alternate PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for

new sources were ca lculated based on the best performing source in each subcategory. As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the EPA must take considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 139 of 444 Formatted: Normal BSCP alternate options, we have limited datasets for the following pollutants and subcategories: PM for new large tunnel kilns and PM for new small tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See the Limited Dataset Memo for more information. The alternate total non - Hg HAP metals limit was calculated using a similar methodology as the proposed total non - Hg HAP metals limit. Since the alternate total non - Hg HAP metals limits were calculated based on smaller datasets, we found that there were no small kilns in the top three b est performing kilns with both PM and non

- Hg HAP metals data and only one large kiln in the top nine best performing kilns with both PM and non

- Hg HAP metals data. Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non - Hg HAP metals limit for existing sources was c alculated by multiplying the alternate PM lb/ton limit by the throughput and the percentage of non - Hg HAP metals measured in the PM during that test. The alternate small kiln non

- Hg HAP metals limit for existing sources was then set equal to the existing s ource large kiln non

- Hg HAP metals limit. For new sources, the best performing unit in the PM new source MACT floor pool did not have any non

- Hg HAP metals data . Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non - Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was calculat ed using the average throughput and the average***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 140 of 444 Formatted: Normal percentage of non

- Hg HAP metals measured during tests for kilns with a FF

- based APCD. The alternate small kiln non

- Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was then set equal to the new source large kiln non

- Hg HA P metals limit. The alternate emissions limits for existing and new sources are presented in in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. We request comment on the calculation methodology used to generate these alternate limits , which is d escribed in the technical memorandum “ Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products ” in
Doc ket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ) , as well as comment on whether we should use these limits instead of the limits we are proposing. 2. HAP Metals Work Practice Standard In the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel , members of th e BSCP manufacturing industry discussed whether work practice standard s for Hg and non - Hg HAP metals would be more appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns than emissions limit s for these pollutants . BSCP manufacturing industry representatives noted the high perc entage of test runs***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 141 of 444 Formatted: Normal below the respective detection limits in the tests results for each metal as support for this suggestion
. We review ed the available stack test data for Hg and non - Hg HAP metals from BSCP tunnel kilns to evaluate this suggestion. For Hg, we found that all test runs were actually above the detection limits. F or the non - Hg HAP metals, we found that only one of the individual non

- Hg HAP metals had a high percentage of test runs below the detection limi t
. W e found a high percentage of test runs above the detection limits for all the other non - Hg
HAP metals
. For more information on this analysis, please see the technical memorandum “ Determination of “Non

- Detect” Test Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2013

- 0291
. Because Hg and most of the non - Hg HAP metals are emitted from BSCP kilns in detectable levels, the EPA believes it is technologically practicable to measure these emissions and they do not meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice standards under CAA section 112(h). C onsequently, we have declined to propose work practice s tandard s for Hg or non - Hg HAP metals
. Although we are not proposing work practices for HAP metals, we are requesting comment on this issue . We a re specifically asking for emissions data or any other information relevant to the issue of whether the metals emissions from these***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 142 of 444 Formatted: Normal sources meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice standards in CAA section 112(h)
. 3. Emissions Averaging As part of the EPA’s general policy of encouraging the use of flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly monitored and enforced, we are also requesting comment in this proposed rule on whether to include emissions averaging as an alternative to the in dividual MACT floor emission limits in the proposed rule. Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment on whether to consider alternative emission s averaging limits for PM ( in units of lb/ton or gr/dscf at 7 percent O 2 ) and total non

Hg HAP metals ( in units of lb/hr) for existing tunnel kilns. Emissions averaging can provide sources the flexibility to comply in the least costly manner while still maintaining regulation that is workable and enforceable. Emissions averaging would not be applicable to new sourc es and could only be used between existing tunnel kilns in the same size subcategory (large or small) at a particular BSCP facility. Emissions averaging would allow owners and operators of an affected source to demonstrate that the source complies with the emission limits by averaging the emissions from an individual affected unit that is emitting above the emission limits with***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 143 of 444 Formatted: Normal other affected units at the same facility that are emitting below the emission limits. We are requesting comment on whether to include an emissions averaging compliance alternative in which emissions averaging represents an equivalent, more flexible, and less costly alternative to controlling certain emission points to MACT levels. A limited form of averaging could be implemented that would not lessen the stringency of the MACT floor limits and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost and energy savings to owners and operators. We also recognize that we must ensure that any emissions ave raging option can be implemented and enforced, will be clear to sources, and would be no less stringent than unit by unit implementation of the MACT floor limits. The EPA has concluded that it is permissible under the appropriate circumstances to establish within a NESHAP a unified compliance regimen that permits averaging within an affected source across individual affected units subject to the standard under certain conditions. Averaging across affected units is permitted only if it can be demonstrated th at the total quantity of any particular HAP that may be emitted by that portion of a contiguous major source that is subject to the NESHAP will not be greater under the averaging mechanism than it could be if***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 144 of 444 Formatted: Normal each individual affected unit complied separate ly with the applicable standard. Under this test, the practical outcome of averaging is equivalent to compliance with the MACT floor limits by each discrete unit, and the statutory requirement that the MACT standard reflect the maximum achievable emissions reductions is, therefore, fully effectuated. In past rulemakings, the EPA has generally imposed certain limits on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. These limits include: (1) no averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no av eraging between sources that are not part of the same affected source, (3) no averaging between individual sources within a single major source if the individual sources are not subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources. Any emissions averaging alternative to the proposed rule requirements would fully satisfy each of these criteria. First, emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual sources at a single existing affected source, and would onl y be permitted between individual sources subject to the Brick and Structural Clay NESHAP. Further, emissions averaging would not be permitted between two or more different affected sources or between two or more sources in different subcategories. Finally, new sources could not use emissions averaging. In addition,any***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 145 of 444 Formatted: Normal emissions averaging alternative would require each facility that intends to utilize emissions averaging to submit an emission s averaging plan, which provides additional assurance that the necessary criteria will be followed. In such an emissions averaging plan, the facility would include the identification of: (1) all units in the averaging group, (2) the control technology inst alled, (3) the process parameter that will be monitored, (4) the specific control technology or pollution prevention measure to be used, (5) the test plan for the measurement of the HAP being averaged, and (6) the operating parameters to be monitored for e ach control device. Upon receipt, the regulatory authority would not be able to approve an emissions averaging plan containing averaging between emissions of different types of pollutants or between sources in different subcategories. This emissions averag ing alternative would also exclude new affected sources from the emissions averaging provision. The EPA believes emissions averaging is not appropriate for new sources because it is most cost effective to integrate state

- of

- the

- art controls into equipment design and to install the technology during construction of new sources. One reason to allow emissions averaging under certain circumstances is to give existing sources flexibility to achieve compliance at diverse***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 146 of 444 Formatted: Normal points with varying degrees of add

- on cont rol already in place in the most cost

- effective and technically reasonable fashion. This flexibility is not needed for new sources because they can be designed and constructed with compliance in mind. With concern about the equivalency of emissions reducti ons from averaging and non

- averaging in mind, we would also include under the emissions averaging provision caps on the current emissions from each of the sources in the averaging group. The emissions for each unit in the averaging group would be capped
at the emission level being achieved on the effective date of the final rule. These caps would ensure that emissions do not increase above the emission levels that sources currently are designed, operated, and maintained to achieve. In the absence of perform ance tests, in documenting these caps, these sources would document the type, design, and operating specification of control devices installed on the effective date of the final rule to ensure that existing controls are not removed or operated less efficie ntly. By including this provision in this proposed rule, we would further ensure that emissions averaging results in environmental benefits equivalent to or better than without emissions averaging. In addition, we would plan to include a discount factor of 10 percent that would be applied when emissions averaging is***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 147 of 444 Formatted: Normal used. This discount factor will further ensure that averaging will be at least as stringent as the MACT floor limits in the absence of averaging. The EPA is soliciting comment on use of a discou nt factor and whether 10 percent is the appropriate discount factor or whether the appropriate discount factor is somewhere in the range of 5% to 25% . The emissions averaging provision would not apply to individual units if the unit shares a common stack w ith units in other subcategories, because in that circumstance it is not possible to distinguish the emissions from each individual unit. The alternative emissions averaging provisions for which we are requesting comment in this proposed rule are based in part on the emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and rationale for the HON emissions averaging provisions were provided in the preamble to the final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22, 1994). 4. Subcategories Based on Raw Materials The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to create subcategories which distinguish among ‘‘classes, types, and sizes of sources’’. Section 112(d)(1). EPA is considering that possibility taking comment on subcategorizing w ith regard to potential sta ndards for mercury emitted by brick kilns. Were EPA to do so, each***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 148 of 444 Formatted: Normal subcategory would have its own floor and standard, reflecting performance of the sources within that subcategory. EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, rather than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts warrant. Normally, any basis for subcategorizing must be related to an effect on emissions, rather than to some difference among sources which does not affect emissions performance. The subcategorization po ssibility for mercury which we are considering is the mercury concentration of the raw materials in the kiln’s clay mine, or geographic location. EPA does not have sufficient data to determine if mercury emissions correlate with the mercury content of the clay used as raw material by the kiln. Additionally, EPA does not have data that show to what extent mercury content of clay varies by kiln location (i.e., geographical distinction) or within a given source of clay, and to what extent a source could reduce mercury emissions by using an alternate source of clay with lower mercury content. If data were available to show that the amount of mercury in the raw materials significantly affected mercury emissions, and that kilns could not reasonably use an altern ative source of clay with lower mercury content, kilns using raw materials with higher mercury content might be considered a different type or***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 149 of 444 Formatted: Normal class of kiln because their process necessarily requires the use of that higher

- mercury raw materials. However, d ata are not available to support subcategorization based on the amount of mercury in the raw materials. Such data would need to show a correlation between raw material content and mercury emissions and also need to indicate sharp disparities in raw materia l mercury content that readily differentiate among types of sources. Additionally, data would also be needed to show that alternate sources of raw materials with lower mercury content are not available or feasible. We are specifically asking for mercury e missions data coupled with raw materials mercury data. We are also asking for information regarding the availability of low mercury clay and the feasibility of using low mercury clay to reduce emissions. EPA realizes that if this data is not currently avai lable, obtaining this data may not be possible within the current schedule to promulgate the final rule. Therefore, EPA requests comment on possible approaches to resolve this issue. V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Cate gory This section summarizes the requirements for the C lay Ceramics M anufacturing source category proposed in today’s***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 150 of 444 Formatted: Normal
action. Section VI of this preamble provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.
A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule? Today’s proposed rule for C lay C eramics M anufacturing applies to clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major source of HAP emissions. The
C lay C eramics M anufacturing s ource category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware (toilets and sinks).
B. What are the affected sources? The affected sources , which are the portions of each source in th e category for which we are setting standards, are: (1)

e ach ceramic tile roller kiln; ( 2 ) each floor tile press dryer ; ( 3 ) each ceramic tile spray dryer; ( 4 ) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying ; ( 5 ) each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; ( 6 ) each sa nitaryware shuttle kiln; and ( 7 ) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth
. The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) k ilns that are used exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously fired products; ( 2 ) g laze spray operations that use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis);***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 151 of 444 Formatted: Normal ( 3 ) wall tile press dryers; and ( 4 ) sanitaryware ware dryers. See section VI.A for information on why these sources are not subject to the proposed rule.
C. Does the proposed rule apply to me? This proposed C lay C eramics manufacturing rule applies to

own ers or operat ors of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emi ts or has the potential to emit , considering controls , 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I
meet? 1. Emission Limitations We are proposing e mission limits for PM as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations
. We are proposing emission limits for Hg for all new and existing ceramic t ile roller kilns , ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns
. We are proposing emission limits for dioxin/furan for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 152 of 444 Formatted: Normal
kilns , floor tile press dryer s and ceramic tile spray dryer s . W e are also proposing a n emission limit for HCl

- equivalent for all existing and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid gases HF and HCl
. The propos ed emission limits

are presented in Table 9 of this preamble.
**Table 9**  **– Proposed**  **Emi ssion Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources** 

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **( lb/hr**  **HCl**   ** equivalent** **) a**  **Hg (lb/ton)**  **PM b**  **(lb/ton) Dioxins/furans**  **(ng/dscm at 7**  **percent O**  **2 )**  **c** Limits for existing sources Floor tile roller kilns 140 1. 3 E

- 04 0. 1 8 4.6 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0.19 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 44 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E

- 04 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0.12 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 04 1.9

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 1.2 E

- 04 0. 33 1.5 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 33

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application -- -- 12

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 8.8

-- Limits for new sources Floor tile roller kilns 140 3.9 E

- 05 0.027 1.5 Floor tile press dryers

-- -- -- 0.19 Floor tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0.17 Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E

- 0 4 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers

-- -- -- 0.12 Tile glaze lines

-- 1.6 E

- 04 0.61

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns 140 1.2 E

- 04 0.095 0.37 Sanitaryware manual glaze application -- -- 3.8

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application -- -- 3.2

--***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 153 of 444 Formatted: Normal

**Subcategory Acid gases**  **( lb/hr**  **HCl**   ** equivalent** **) a**  **Hg (lb/ton)**  **PM b**  **(lb/ton) Dioxins/furans**  **(ng/dscm at 7**  **percent O**  **2 )**  **c** Sanitaryware robot glaze application -- -- 2.2

--

a Limit applies to all kilns at facility. b PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals.
c ng/dscm = nano gram s per dry standard cubic meter
.
2. Work Practice Standards We are proposing work practice standard s in lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non - Hg HAP metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns . The work practice standards would require using natu ral gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; developing and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle kiln; l abel ing each shuttle kiln with t he maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; documenting the total tonnage placed in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load ; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance ; and developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the shuttle kilns.
E. What are the startup a nd shutdown requirements?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 154 of 444 Formatted: Normal
The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section
II. B of this preamble. S tandards for periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in this section
. We are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutd own, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the
APCD. W hen the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in secti on V.G of this preamble.
We are also proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns , floor***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 155 of 444 Formatted: Normal tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s and sanitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exh aust temperature reaches 400 °F . For shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. W hen the re are ceramics in the kiln or dryer , the owner or operator would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble )
. We are not proposing alternate standards for periods o f startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown.
F
. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? We are proposing that owners or operators of all affected sources subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using specif ied EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance test would need to be conducted before renewing the facility ’s 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 156 of 444 Formatted: Normal years following the initial perform ance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being revised. Under today’s proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , the owner or operator would need to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or operator would measure HF and HCl from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Station ary Sources

- Isokinetic Method,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8;
• EPA Method 26, “Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid particulate ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
• EPA Method 320, “Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR” 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, provided the test follow s the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Metho d 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Foll owing the performance test, the owner or operator would calculate the HCl

- equivalent for the kiln using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8595( f )(4) (i) . If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would sum the HCl

equivalent for each k iln using proposed Equation 5 in 40 CFR***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 157 of 444 Formatted: Normal
63.8 59 5(f)( 4 )(ii) to get the total facility HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the proposed limitation. We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanita ryware first

fire tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3;
• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, where the test results would report the weigh t of the PM on the filter as PM filterable; or
• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns , ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns. We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method 5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. We are also proposing that the owner or operator measure dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers , floor tile press dryers and sanitaryware first

- fire tunnel kilns using EPA Method 23, “Determination of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 158 of 444 Formatted: Normal Polychlorinated Dibenzo

- p - Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenz ofurans From Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A

- 7 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance requirements that are being proposed. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator would need to install the CPMS equipment to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator would u se the CPMS to establish site

specific operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

- flowing at all time s during the HF/HCl performance test and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator would be required to determine the average feed rate from the three test r uns. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed rate values during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 159 of 444 Formatted: Normal
values becomes the site

- specific operating l imit. If a BLD system is present , the owner or operator would need to submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a stand

- alone FF ( i.e. , no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
For a wet scrubber, we are proposi ng that the owner or operator continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM performance test , the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl performance tests . For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator would need to determine and record the average values for the three test runs and the 3

- hour block average value. The average of the three test runs establishe s the minimum site

specific pressure drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values bec ome the site

specific operating limits.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 160 of 444 Formatted: Normal
For an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests and determine the 3

- hour block average flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site

- specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit. If different average activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the si te

- specific operating limit. If the owner or operator intend s to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating temperature of the process ( tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3

- hour block average operating temperature . The average of the three test runs establishes the site

- specific operating limit.
For sources with no A PCD installed, we are proposing that the owner or operator calculat e the maximum potential HCl

equivalent using proposed Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8 59 5( g )( 1 ) (i)
. The owner or operator would u se the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of the tunnel or***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 161 of 444 Formatted: Normal
roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would need
to sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent and compare this value to the proposed health

- based emission li mitation for acid gases . If the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent is greater than the proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl

equiv alent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there

are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that would result in a total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent that remains at or below the proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would become the operating limit(s) for process rate. W e are also proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating temperature of a source during the dioxin/furan performanc e test and determine the 3

- hour block average operating temperature. The average of the three test runs establishes the site

- specific operating limit for temperature
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 162 of 444 Formatted: Normal
G
. What are the continuous compliance requirements? Today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing r ule proposes that the owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to follow the requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or ope rator would need to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes , including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or operator would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation checks, and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator would need to calculate and record the 3

- hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour averaging period, the owner or operator would need
to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 163 of 444 Formatted: Normal
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) health

- based emission limit by maintain ing free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M pl an. The owner or operator would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the proposed r ule would provide the option to use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit. For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a
BLD sys tem alarm and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would also need to operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting p eriod. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 164 of 444 Formatted: Normal is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and if corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm , the alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. For the option of monitor ing VE, we are proposing that the owner or operator perform daily, 15

- minute VE o bservations in accordance with the procedures of EPA Method 22, “Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. During the VE observations, the source would need to be operat ing under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that source . If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 165 of 444 Formatted: Normal or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
For a stand

- alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit
. For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator continuously m aintain the 3

- hour block averages for scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow
rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values established during the applicable performance
test. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or above the minimum value established during the PM performance test would demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid pH and chemical ( e.g. , lime , caustic) addition rate at or above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl performance test would demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) health

- based emission limit. Maintaining the 3

- hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate a t or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl performance tests would demonstrate compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 166 of 444 Formatted: Normal
For an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limit s by continuously monitor ing the activated carbon flow rate and maintain ing it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performan ce
test s . If the owner or operator intend s to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the operating temperature of the process ( tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) and maintaining it at or above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and
at or below the avera ge operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer
. For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conduct ing a daily inspection to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conduct ing weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conduct ing annual inspections of the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 167 of 444 Formatted: Normal interior of the control equipment (if a pplicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment
. For baffles on a spray glazing operation , we are proposing that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by conduct ing an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.
For a source with no APCD , we are proposing that , to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit , the owner or operator monitor VE as described above ; and , to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator continuously monitor the operating temperature , determin e and record 3

- hour block averages and maintain the 3

- hour block averages at or above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and at or below the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer
. In addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent was not at or below the proposed health

- based emission limitation for acid gases , then we are proposing that the owner or operator collect and record data documentin g the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce the data to 3

- hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 168 of 444 Formatted: Normal maintain the kiln process rate (s) at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that would enable the total facility

ma ximum potential HCl

- equivalent to remain at or below the proposed limitation
. H
. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? All new and existing sources would be required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisio ns (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting. Each owner or operator would be required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require the owner or operator to include in the not ification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also be required for each semiannual reporting period. This proposed Clay Cerami cs manufacturing rule would require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These recordkeeping***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 169 of 444 Formatted: Normal requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 of subpart KKKKK. Specifically, w e are proposing that the owner or operator must keep the following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. • Records of performance tests.
• Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of approved routine control device maintenance exemption.
• Continuous monitoring data as required in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. • Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions t aken.
• Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet each emission limit ( i.e. , deviations from operating limits ).
• Records of production rates.
• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing procedures.
• Records of maintenance and inspecti ons performed on the APCD
. • Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting conformance.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
• Logs of the information required to document compliance with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
• Records of each malfunction and the corrective action taken. We are also proposing to require that the owner or operator submit the following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the Ge neral Provisions.
• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after the affected source become s subject to this subpart.
• Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 170 of 444 Formatted: Normal
before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
• Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test.
• Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstration for the work practice standard ).
• Compliance reports semi

- annually , including a report of each malfunction resulting in an exceedanc e and the corrective action taken
. • Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating use of the alternative fuel.
• Results of each performance test within 60 days of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer

- to

- compu ter electronic transfer via EPA

- provided software for data collected using supported test methods.
I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA? The ERT provisions being proposed for c lay c eramics manufacturing are the same as those being proposed for BSCP manufacturing. The ERT provisions for BSCP manufacturing are discussed in section III.I of this preamble.
**V I**  **. Rationale for the Proposed Rule**  **for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing** 
A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the proposed rule? Based on our review of the available information on the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that there are three distinct sectors within the industry: (1) c eramic floor tile; (2) ce ramic wall tile; and (3) sanitaryware.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 171 of 444 Formatted: Normal Specifically, w e found that the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware sectors of the industry differ in terms of raw materials, processes and final products. The primary raw materials used for manufac turing sanitaryware are ball clay , other clays, feldspar and silica, whereas ceramic tile is made primarily from ball clay, talc, nepheline syenite (an igneous rock comprised of nepheline, microcline and albite), fire clay and shale. However, while the

raw materials are similar for ceramic floor and wall tile, the mix for ceramic wall tile includes more talc and less ball clay, resulting in a lighter

- weight mix. Regarding processes, ceramic floor tile facilities use spray dryers to process the ceramic mix i nto a powder to allow tile pressing, followed by press dryers to press the tiles. The tile is then glazed prior to firing in a roller kiln. Ceramic wall tile facilities also use spray and press dryers, but they are designed, managed and operated to handle the lighter weight raw material mix. Ceramic wall tile is produced in a two

- step firing process using roller kilns and it is glazed in between firings. On the other hand, sanitaryware facilities use tunnel kilns to fire the ceramic

ware and they glaze the ware before firing, predominantly using glaze spraying.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 172 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Ceramic floor tile , ceramic wall tile and s anitaryware also have different characteristics as finished products and compete in different markets. Ceramic floor tile is defined as a vitreous product with a low water absorption rate. Floor tile is known for its multi

- color, variably

- textured, and slip

- resistant characteristics, which are not acceptable in most wall tiles. Ceramic w all tile is defined as a non - vitreous product required to meet a water absorption rate of 7 to 20 percent, much higher than that required for floor tile
. Wall tile has much more stringent appearance requirements compared to floor tile, with the market demanding that most wall tile be mono

- colo r, with a high gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring a two

- step firing process). Sanitaryware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low absorption after firing that is used for plumbing and bathroom fixtures and accessories (such as toilets and ceramic sin ks). In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the foremost sources of HAP emissions are first

- fire tunnel and periodic (shuttle) kilns at sanitaryware facilities and roller kilns at ceramic tile facilities
. Based on emissions testing, the HAP emitted f rom first

- fire tunnel kilns and roller kilns include HF, HCl, Hg, other non

- Hg HAP metals and dioxins/furans. S huttle kilns are also assumed to emit these pollutants based on similarities in raw materials used in shuttle kilns and first

-***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 173 of 444 Formatted: Normal
fire tunnel kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities are glaze lines that employ glaze spraying at ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths at sanitaryware facilities, spray dryers at ceramic tile facilities and press dryers at floor tile facilities. The HAP emitted from ceramic tile glaz e lines include Hg and non - Hg HAP metals, t he HAP emitted from sanitaryware glazing operations include non

- Hg HAP metals and the HAP emitted from ceramic tile spray dryers and press dryers are dioxins/furans. Other process units at clay ceramics facilities ( e.g. , raw material processing and handling, wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers ) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP. 54 For this reason, the pro posed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule covers those existing and new first

- fire kilns, glaze spray operations, spray dryers and press dryers at major source clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that emit HAP and meet the applicability criteria. Additiona l c lay ceramics process units that do not meet the applicability criteria include (1) k ilns that are used exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously fired products ; ( 2 ) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes

54 As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers were tested for dioxins/furans, but none of the tests found detectable levels of dioxins/furans.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 174 of 444 Formatted: Normal containing less than 0.1 (weig ht) percent metal HAP (dry basis) ; and ( 3 ) glazing operations using a flow (curtain) coating or waterfall method
. Re

- fire kilns are used for firing products that have already been fired but have minor defects, which are subsequently repaired. Nearly all of the emissions from the firing of a clay body ( i.e. , fluorides, chlorides) are released during the initial vitrification step conducted in first

- fire kilns, while re

- fire ware has already been vitrified and emits little to no fluorides or chlorides. Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products also emit little to no HF or HCl for similar reasons
. Glaze spray operations using glaze containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP are expected to be an insignificant sourc e of HAP emissions
. Glaze applied using a flow (curtain) coating or waterfall method rather than using an aerosol spraying method would have little to no air emissions of non

- Hg HAP metals
. B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?
For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns , this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per to n of product produced. For non -***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 175 of 444 Formatted: Normal Hg HAP metals emissions from ceramic tile glaz e lines and sanitaryware glaze spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits for
PM as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton o f glaze sprayed
. For Hg emissions from ceramic tile glaz e lines , this proposed rule includes numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed rule includes numerical emission limits in units of concentration. The selection of numerical emission rate limits and numerical emission limits as the format for th is proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule provides flexibility for the regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may not be appropriate in ea ch case. In addition, the selection of numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of product produced ensures that differences in the size or process rate of the affected source do not affect the level of emissions control achiev ed. The PM limit s are proposed as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals
. T he same control techniques that would be used to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 176 of 444 Formatted: Normal
control PM will control non

- Hg HAP metals
. Particulate matter was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific individual HAP met als because all sources do not emit the same type and amount of non - Hg HAP metals due to differences in raw materials and glaze formulations . However, most sources generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of HAP metals
. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the cost of performance testing to comply with numerous standards for individual non

- Hg HAP metals.
For acid gases (HF and HCl), this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes a health

- based emission limit as a

mass of HCl

- equivalent emitted per hour . Further discussion about the development of health

- based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is provided in section VI. J of this preamble. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes work practices for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. As described in more detail in section VI. K .1 of this preamble, technological and economic limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle kilns.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 177 of 444 Formatted: Normal
C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories? Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through subcategorization, the EPA may distinguish among classes, types and sizes of sources within a category.
1
. Sanitaryware Kilns Upon initial consideration of the available information on the sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that separate subcategories for sanitaryware periodi c (shuttle) kilns and sanitaryware continuous (tunnel) kilns were warranted because shuttle kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly basis and accounting for only a small percentage of production) and are operated in batch cy cles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously.
As noted in section VI. K .1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is techn ologically and economically infeasible to test shuttle kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these differenc es impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in that smaller kilns operated periodic ally ( i.e. , shuttle kilns) would be expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 178 of 444 Formatted: Normal
2
. Sanitaryware Glazing We also determined that separate subcategories for three different glaze application methods for sanitaryware were warranted. Manual glaze spraying is done by a human operator with one spray gun per station per booth. The ware are move d and set up manually and glaze is applied to one to two pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying are the highest of the application methods. Spray machine , or chain

- on - edge , glaze application is done by
auto matic reciprocating spray guns from a fixed location with 10
to 20 spray guns per booth. The ware are moved and set up on a “chain

- on - edge” conveyor system and glaze is applied to six to

seven pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying are the second highest of the application methods. Robot glaze spraying is done by an automatic robot arm with one spray gun per booth. The ware are moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one piece at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying are the lowest of the application methods.
We also examined subcategorization by manual spraying and

non - manual spraying (where “ non - manual spraying ” would include both spray machine and robot glaze spraying ) , but we determined that the design and emission differences between spray machine***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 179 of 444 Formatted: Normal
and robot glaze spraying are significant enough to warrant separate subcategories
. D. What approaches did the EPA c onsider in developing the proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources? As noted in section IV.D of this preamble, a ll standards for new and existing sources established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect MACT. The remainder of this section describes the development of the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. As noted in section VI. J of this preamble, health

- based emissions standards are being propose d for the acid gases HF and HCl under the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants. In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for

non - Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furan s, we separated the data by industry sector, source type and subcategor y as described in section VI.C of this preamble (if applicable) . Within each of those categories or subcategories, we ranked the data in terms of lb/ton for PM and Hg and in terms of na no gram s per dry standard cubic meter ( ng/dscm ) at 7 percent O 2 for dioxins/furans ( as described in section VI.E of this preamble ). Because there are less than 30 sources in each subcategory, we identified the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 180 of 444 Formatted: Normal top five ( best performing ) sources for which we had data. For subcategories with less than five sources, we considered all sources for which we had data as best performing sources. Once we identified the best performing sources , we then calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/dscm at 7 percent O 2 (as applicable) as described in section VI.E of this preamble
. E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing
sources?
T he EPA must consider available emissions information to determine the MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total

non - Hg HAP metals) and dioxin s /furan s , we calculated the MACT floor for a subcategory of sources by ranking all the available emissions data for units within the subcategory with the best performing sources ranked at the top, as described later in this section and then using the test results from the best performing

sources (up to five) . Therefore, as discussed in section VI.D of this preamble, the MACT floor limits for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans were calculated based on the performance of the best performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s average emission value from lowest to highest. We then determined the data distribution of the dataset made up of the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 181 of 444 Formatted: Normal top five best performers using kurtosis and skewness, as described in section IV.E of this preamble. We assessed variability of the best performers by calculating a UPL using the appropriate equation based o n the data distribution. The UPL takes into consideration the average performance of the unit and the variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the UPL represents the value which one can expe ct the mean of a specified number of future observations ( e.g. , 3

- run average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the results of an independent sample from the same population . It is a standard statistical methodology used to a ccount for variability. A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Con trol Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in D ocket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. We also compared the appropriate 3xRDL value to the calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. As described in section IV.E of this preamble, we u sed the greater of the 3xRDL value and calculated UPL value to ensure that***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 182 of 444 Formatted: Normal measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability analysis for all existing MACT floors that had BDL or DLL r un data present in the best performing datasets (see the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290).
As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in

s etting floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best performance over time. We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the emission limits selected as the MACT floors adequately represe nt the level of emissions actually achieved by the average of the best performing units, considering operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from units representative of the best performers and the variability an alysis are reasonably designed to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the best performing five units in a given subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 183 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Table 1 0 of this preamble presents the average emission level of the best performing sources and the existing source MACT floo r. Each subcategory had less than 30 sources nationwide ; thus , the top five sources were used in the MACT floor. If we had data for less than five sources, we used all the data available
. The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwis e noted.
**Table 1**  **0 —**  **Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics**  **Existing Sources a** 

**Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  **(lb/ton) PM**  **b ,c**  **(lb/ton) Dioxin**  **s /furan**  **s (**  **ng/dscm at 7**  **percent O**  **2 )**  Floor tile roller kilns Avg. of best performing sources 7.8 E

- 05 0.0 54 2.9
MACT floor 1. 3 E

- 04 0. 1 8 4.6 Floor tile press dryers Avg. of best performing sources -- -- 0.078
MACT floor

-- -- 0.19 d Floor tile spray dryers Avg. of best performing sources -- -- 0.96
MACT floor

-- -- 44 Wall tile roller kilns Avg. of best performing sources 5.0 E

- 05 0.0 7 1 0.0 65
MACT floor 2.0 E

- 04 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers Avg. of best performing sources -- -- 0.053
MACT floor

-- -- 0.12 d Tile glaze lines Avg. of best performing sources 2.0 E

- 05 0.67

--
MACT floor 1.6 E

- 04 d 1.9

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns Avg. of best performing sources 1.6 E

- 04 0.1 2 0.81
MACT floor 2.6 E

- 04 0. 33 1.5 Sanitaryware manual glaze application Avg. of best performing sources -- 14

--
MACT floor

-- 33

--***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 184 of 444 Formatted: Normal

**Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  **(lb/ton) PM**  **b ,c**  **(lb/ton) Dioxin**  **s /furan**  **s (**  **ng/dscm at 7**  **percent O**  **2 )**  Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application Avg. of best performing sources -- 5.9

--
MACT floor

-- 12

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application Avg. of best performing sources -- 4.4

--
MACT floor

-- 8.8

--
a The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise note d
. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton glaze sprayed. c PM is a surrogate for non - Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources? The approach t hat we used to calculate the MACT floors for

new sources is described in section IV.F of this preamble . This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as the MACT floor adequately represents the average level of control actually achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, considering ordinary operational variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 0
. Table 1 1 of this preamble presents , for each subcategory and pollutant , the average emission level of the best performing similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 185 of 444 Formatted: Normal
**Table 1 1**  **— Summary of**  **MACT Floor Results for**  **Clay Ceramics New**  **Sources a** 

**Subcategory Parameter**  **Hg b**  **(lb/ton) PM**  **b,c (lb/ton)**  **Dioxin s**  **/furan s**  **( ng/dscm**  **at 7 percent**  **O 2**  **)** Floor tile roller kilns Avg. of top performer 3.5 E

- 05 0.020 1.1 MACT floor 3.9 E

- 05 0. 0 27 1.5 Floor tile press dryers Avg. of top performer

-- -- 0.070 MACT floor

-- -- 0.19 d Floor tile spray dryers Avg. of top performer

-- -- 0.010 MACT floor

-- -- 0.17 d Wall tile roller kilns Avg. of top performer 5.0 E

- 0 5 0.0 71 0.0 65 MACT floor 2.0 E

- 0 4 0.20 0.1 7 Wall tile spray dryers Avg. of top performer

-- -- 0.053 MACT floor

-- -- 0.12 d Tile glaze lines Avg. of top performer 7.4 E

- 06 0.15

-- MACT floor 1.6 E

- 04 d 0.61

-- First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns Avg. of top performer 6.4 E

- 05 0.092 0.23 MACT floor 1.2 E

- 04 0.095 0.37 Sanitaryware manual glaze application Avg. of top performer

-- 3.3

-- MACT floor

-- 3.8

-- Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application Avg. of top performer

-- 2.0

--
MACT floor

-- 3.2

-- Sanitaryware robot glaze application Avg. of top performer

-- 1.3

-- MACT floor

-- 2.2

--

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced ; for glazing are lb/ ton glaze sprayed.
c PM is a surrogate for non

- Hg HAP metals
. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value
. G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to limited datasets? As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the re are specific considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 186 of 444 Formatted: Normal the clay ceramics source category, we have limited datasets for the following pollutants and subcategories:

• Hg, PM, and d ioxins/furans for new floor tile roller kilns;
• d ioxins/furans for new floor tile press dryers;
• d ioxins/furans for new floor tile spray dryers;
• Hg and d ioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile roller kilns;
• d ioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile spray dryers;
• Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines;
• Hg, PM, and d ioxins/furans for new sanitaryware tunnel kilns; and
• PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray machine, and robot glaze spray booths. For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the

memora ndum titled “Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets,” which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ; see that memorandum for more information on the analysis and the results.
H
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- f loor for existing
sources? As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D of this preamble, the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements that are more stringent than the MACT floor ( i.e. , beyond

- the

floor control options). When considering beyond

- t he

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs,
energy and non - air quality health and environmental impacts when***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 187 of 444 Formatted: Normal doing so. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control ( e.g. , the performance of t echnologies that could result in lower emissions) for the different subcategories.
We considered requiring each subcategory of existing sources to meet the new source MACT floors developed as described in section VI.F of this preamble. We analyzed the beyo nd

- the

- floor options for each pollutant separately for each subcategory of existing sources. Our analyses are documented in the technical memorandum “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP ” in Docket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- O AR

- 2013

- 0290 and summarized in the following paragraphs
. For Hg from existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns, based on the data available, we estimate that all existing tunnel kilns could meet the new source MACT floor emission limits described in section VI.F of this preamble without incurring additional emission control costs
. Therefore, we are proposing a beyond

the

- floor Hg limit for existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns equivalent to the new source MACT floor
. For several sources and pollutants, the existing s ource MACT floor and the new source MACT floor are the same value, usually because there is only one source with data in the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 188 of 444 Formatted: Normal subcategory or because both floors are based on the 3xRDL value. These sources/pollutants include dioxins/furans from floor tile
pr ess dryers, PM (as a surrogate for total non

- Hg HAP metals) , Hg and dioxins/furans from wall tile roller kilns, dioxins/furans from wall tile spray dryers and Hg from ceramic tile glaze lines
. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond

- the

floor limits for these sources and pollutants
. The incremental costs, emission reductions and cost effectiveness for all other beyond

- the

- floor options are summarized by subcategory and by pollutant in Table 1 2 of this preamble. In all these cases, we have concluded that t he incremental costs of additional control above the MACT floor emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of emission reduction achieved. Therefore, we are not proposing to go beyond

- the

- floor for any of the subcategory/pollutant concentrati ons included in Table 1 2 of this preamble.
**Table 1 2**  **- Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions**  **and Cost**  **Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond -**  **the -**  **Floor Options**  **(2011 dollars)**

**Subcategory Pollutant**  **Cost ( million**  **) Incremental**  **HAP Emissions**  **Reductions (**  **tpy) Cost Effectiveness**  **($/ton total HAP) Capital**  **Annual** Floor tile roller kilns Hg $4.14 $3.16 0.044 $71,800,000 Total non

Hg HAP metals $10.8 $4.28 0.73 $ 5,83 0,000***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 189 of 444 Formatted: Normal

**Subcategory Pollutant**  **Cost ( million**  **) Incremental**  **HAP Emissions**  **Reductions (**  **tpy) Cost Effectiveness**  **($/ton total HAP) Capital**  **Annual** Dioxins/

furans $2.32 $1.77 8.5 E

- 07 $ 2,08 0,000 ,000,000
Floor tile spray dryers Dioxins/ furans $0.335 $0.278 4.6 E

- 08 $5,990,000,000,000 Tile glaze lines Total non

Hg HAP metals $7.67 $2.70 0.038 $70,600,000

First

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns Total non

Hg HAP metals $3.91 $2.01 0.020 $102,000,000

Dioxins/

furans $2.98 $1.78 3.4 E

- 08 $ 51,700 ,000,000 ,00 0 Sanitaryware manual glaze application Total non

Hg HAP metals $6.78 $2.19 0.24 $9,090,000

Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application Total non

Hg HAP metals $1.89 $0.900 0.14 $6,420,000

Sanitaryware robot glaze application Total non

Hg HAP metals $4.97 $2.22 0.097 $23,000,000

I
. How did the EPA consider beyond

- the

- floor for new sources? The MACT floor level of control for each subcategory of new sources for each pollutant was based on the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source within each of the subcategories. When we establish a beyond

- the

- floor standard, we typically identify control techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT fl oor. No techniques were identified that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 190 of 444 Formatted: Normal
new source floors for any of the subcategories for each pollutant . Therefore , the EPA is not proposing a beyond

- the

floor limit for any of the new sources in this propose d Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. J
. How did the EPA determine whether to set health

- based standards for existing and new sources? In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , we considered whether it was appropriate to establish health

- based emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases HF and HCl. The rationale for the development of health

- based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the same as that presen ted for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , with a few exceptions, which are discussed in the sections below. The rationale for the development of health

- based standards for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is discussed in section IV. J of this preamb le. 1. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard? Section IV. J of this preamble discusses the following factors that the EPA considers in making a judgment whether to set a standard base d on the health threshold or the traditional MACT process:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 191 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• The availability of data to set the health

- based standard ;
• Co

- benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or criteria pollutants;
• The pot ential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the pollutant; and
• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other source categories, w here the concentration of the threshold pollutant emitted from the given source category is below the threshold
. The evaluation of the first three factors (availability of data , co - benefits and potential ecosystem impacts) are nearly identical for both the BSCP and c lay c eramics industries. However, further analysis was required concerning the last factor (potential for cumulative adverse health effects ). The evaluation of all four factors for t he c lay c eramics industry is provided below.

a. Availability of Data to Determine Standard Like the BSCP manufacturing rule , because of the relatively small number of facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility

specific information for the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , including tunnel and roller kiln locations and operating characteristics and stack parameters, available for all clay ceramics facilities to assess the feasibility of health

- based standards in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 192 of 444 Formatted: Normal Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling necessary to establish a health

- based emission limit for acid
gases. 55 Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough info rmation to determine the health

- based emission standards for the acid gases HF and HCl for the c lay c eramics industry. As discussed in further detail below, these limits have been developed to ensure that exposure is below the health threshold for each fac ility and also ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health concerns. 56
b. Co

- benefits The additional nationwide SO 2 reductions that would be attributable to Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid gases are estimated to be 31 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the proposed standards. Similar to BSCP, this reduction is substantially lower than the co

- benefits from MACT standards for other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a

55 For more information, see the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manu facturing Source Category” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. 56 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 ( September 9, 2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short

- term emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might allo w us to determine whether a chronic health

- based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health concerns.”)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 193 of 444 Formatted: Normal
health

- based limit, 57 and it wou ld not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit in the circumstances here
.
c. Ecosystem Impacts For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the acid gases HCl and HF around each c lay c eramics facility. For HCl, the environmenta l risk screen indicated that the area

weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition , the ecological benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any facility.

57 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule , 75 FR 54970 ( September 9, 2010)

– Co

- benefits was identified as the “deci sive factor” in the Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule . 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a health

based standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO 2 and oth er HAP gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO 2 alone attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons per year” and discussing both direct SO 2 effects and effects of SO 2 as a precursor to PM 2.5 ) and 75 FR a t 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl 2 ), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into a ccount when considering a health

- based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT Final Rule , 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this issue and continues to believe that the co

- benefits are significant and provide an additional b asis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler MACT Proposed Rule , 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010)

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP me tals included the reduction of 340,000 tons per year of SO 2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule , 76 FR 24976, 25051/1

– Co

- benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surro gate for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO 2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non

- HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and mercury.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 194 of 444 Formatted: Normal
For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the

area - weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each facility ( i.e. , the area

- weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no greater than one percent of the offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental effects. d. Cumulative Effects As noted previously, the EPA m ay consider the availability of information on emissions from co

- located and nearby sources and consider if it is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects from emissions from the sources in the category when combined with other emissio ns from other sources that are co - located or located nearby . Relevant emissions may include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects. Through industry responses to the clay ceramics 2008 EPA

s urvey and the 2010 EPA survey , we have substantial information on the locations of clay ceramics plants and the levels of HF***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 195 of 444 Formatted: Normal and HCl emitted from those plants. While the major source ceramic tile plants are not co

- located with any other type of operation, the three major source sanitaryware plants are. However, the sources co

- located with the sanitaryware plants do not emit acid gases. The metal foundry plant co

- located with the sanitaryware plant in Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly particulates and metals, while the fiberglass plants co

- located with the sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, South Carolina and Brownwood, Texas emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). Consequently, any acid gas emissions from co

- located sources are not expected to impact the total fa cility acid gas emissions significantly. Like BSCP facilities, clay ceramics facilities are typically located on large tracts of land needed for all of the processes involved in clay ceramics manufacturing, including raw material receiving, storage and pro cessing; glaze preparation; forming; drying; glazing; firing; product inspection; and packaging . This provides an additional buffer between the clay ceramics plants and the surrounding area. Because of the relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from t he clay ceramics plants are located close to the facility property line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non - clay ceramics emissions, the location and emissions associated with***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 196 of 444 Formatted: Normal other sources not in the clay ceramics source category are far less certain. While the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey data for clay ceramics facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of nearby other facilities such as those in the NEI have not undergone the same level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions would may contain a great deal significant of uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because of the large footprint of these plants clay ceramic facilities and the clay ceramics risks being confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the combined emissions of HF or HCl from clay ceramics facilities and nearb y other sources would result in substantial cumulative health and environmental effects.
2
. How did the EPA set the level of the standard ? As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing to exercise its discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the circumstances in this case differ from those previous considerations. We request comment on the analysis and conclusions regarding setting health

- based standards.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 197 of 444 Formatted: Normal Following from the EPA’s determination that a health

- based standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health effects on which the threshold is based.
• There must be no observable adverse effect.
• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental effects as the MACT standard that would otherwise be established.
• A st andard must be set; there can be no exclusions from compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions do not pose a health risk. As part of the development of the proposed standards , we have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, inclu ding the size and operating hours of each tunnel and roller kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes ( e.g. , stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each kiln stack. To develop a health

- based emission limit, both long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category were estimated using the HEM

- 3 model as described in section IV. J .3 of this preamble. Further information on the overall modeling approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health

- Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290. In developing the risk a ssessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 198 of 444 Formatted: Normal each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the ch ronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. Because we performed HEM

- 3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at clay ceramics facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HCl

- equivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSH I of 1 is not exceeded , as long as the HCl

- equivalent emissions do not exceed 600 tpy. It is important to note that this emission limit is only applicable to the sources in this source category and should not be considered for sources other than those incl uded in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for HF are determined by the ratio of the chronic RfC to that for HCl, such that the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF are 420 tpy. Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic dose

- response values, the 6 00 tpy level does not necessarily ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ values exceeding 1 . For HF, we estimate that two of the eight***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 199 of 444 Formatted: Normal
facilities examined had an acu te value exceed the REL with the highest being two. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL

- 1) value for HF. To assure that no source e mits more than the 600 tpy HCl

- equivalent limit in a single hour , we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy ( 140 lb/hr of HCl

- equivalent emissions )
. It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds are developed from back

- calculating the emissions that would result in an HQ of 1 at the worst

- case facility. Potential risks at othe r facilities (not the worst

- case facility) are predicted to be well below 1.
Because we had site

- specific data on the operation of each tunnel and roller kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure that : (1) the health

- based emission limit cited above for clay ceramics facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is based. In addit ion, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions associated with clay ceramics kilns, based on results from the EPA’s environmental risk screen methodology outlined above , are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact. Facilities woul d demonstrate compliance with the health

based emission limit by determining their facility

- wide HCl and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 200 of 444 Formatted: Normal HF emissions, calculating the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HCl

equivalent value to calculate th e total HCl

- equivalent emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . For more information on the development of the health

- based standard , see the technical memorandum “ Risk Assessment to D etermine a Health

Based Emissions Limit ation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category ” in Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290. For more information on the calculation of an HCl

equivalent value, see the technical memorandum “ Develo pment of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics
NESHAP ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.
K
. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for existing and new sources? Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns is not feasible because the application of measurement methodology to these sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Therefore, t he EPA is proposing a work practice standard for***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 201 of 444 Formatted: Normal sanitaryware shuttle kilns in lieu of e mission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non - Hg HAP metals . The rationale for th is work practice standard is discussed in the paragraphs below. 1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Emission Standards

a. Overview Shuttle kiln s at sanitaryware facilities are a type of periodic kiln used primarily to refire rejected pieces that have been machined and reglazed (although some shuttle kilns are used as first

- fire units)
. Shuttle kilns are designed with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. The main advantage of this type of kiln is that i t can readily accommodate changes in firing temperature profile and cy cle time to match the requirements of a wide variety of ceramic products. The primary disadvantage of this type of kiln is much higher energy costs per ton when compared to tunnel kilns and roller kilns. 58
Shuttle kilns are batch operated, meaning that a ba tch starts cold and ends cold. The sanitaryware industry operates

58 See the memorandum titled “Characterization of the Ceramic Manufacturing Industry” in the original Clay Ceramics NESHAP docket, incorporated by reference into the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 202 of 444 Formatted: Normal shuttle kilns on batch cycle times of 18 to 38 hours, with the most common cycle times between 22 and 30 hours. As shuttle kilns operate through a heating cycle, temperatures are eithe r in r amp - up or cool

- down mode. 59
b. Emissions and Testing
E mission rates can vary over the batch cycle due to the temperature cycle of the kiln. In order to accurately determine the total emissions from a shuttle kiln cycle , emissions from the entire cycle perio d would need to be tested. 60 As with testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing sanitaryware shuttle kilns for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are either higher or lower than actual emissions, depending on when during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled. 61
C onducting a shuttle kiln test on even the shortest cycle time would require a test crew to be on site for at least 24 hours and would require the test team to have at least a dozen or more sampling train set

- ups or additional manpo wer on site to recover samples and turn

- around sampling trains for subsequent use during the test. It is estimated that the test of a single

59 See the email titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) shou ld be addressed,” in the docket for this proposed rule. 60 Id. 61 See the memorandum entitled “ Rationale for Establishing Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 203 of 444 Formatted: Normal shuttle kiln firing cycl e with analysis would cost $20,000 or

more (2009 dollars)
. As with BSCP periodic kilns, sam pling a single firing cycle might not be adequate for characterizing shuttle kiln emissions, due to variations during firing cycles and variations across tests. To collect three test runs of data,
t wo additional cycles would need to be tested, bringing the cost to $60,000 or more (2009 dollars) to test a single shuttle kiln. Furthermore, the sanitaryware facilities covered under this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule have three or more shuttle kilns each , requiring additional tests at each facility. 62

c. Test Methods and Costs As noted in section VI. K .1 .a of this preamble , when EPA Method 26 or 26A is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur if emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns. Testing of sanitaryware shuttle kilns could encounter a similar problem. Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout shuttle kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to

62 See the sanitaryware industry communication titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 204 of 444 Formatted: Normal operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover samples. 63
An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320 , where HCl breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides near real

- time emissions data . However , the cost for FTIR testing would be similarly expensive as testing by Method 26 or 26A throughout an entire cycle. T he cost for testing by FTIR is estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50

- hour kiln cycle (the average cycle time for a BSCP periodic kiln)
. Assuming a 50 percent reduction in cost for an average 25

- hour sanitaryware shuttle kiln cycle, the cos t to test one cycle would still be substantial (nearly $25,000 (2009 dollars) ). If it were determined that the variations in emissions from cycle to cycle were significant, it might be nece ssary to test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the testing cost to almost $ 5 0,000 and t esting for a third cycle would triple the cost to almost $75,000 (2009 dollars)
. In addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurre d for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be

63 See the RTI memorandum titled “ Rationale for Establishing Work Practice Standards for P eriodic Brick Kilns ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 205 of 444 Formatted: Normal tested using a manual test method ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5 or 17). If additional shuttle kilns needed to be test ed at each facility , the costs would be even higher. 64 While no formal cost

- to

- sales analysis was conducted for sanitaryware shuttle kilns like the one conducted for BSCP periodic kilns (see section IV. K .1 of this preamble ), a similar informal analysis was performed using the sales and production data provided in t he 2008 EPA survey responses (claimed as CBI by the respondent). Based on this analysis, a similar conclusion (that testing is not economically feasible) can be reached
. B ecause the test costs are similar and shuttle kilns represent a small share of total sanitaryware production and revenues, the EPA has concluded that it would not be economically feasible to require testing for shuttle kilns
. d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Shuttle Kilns CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator m ay prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2) (B) further defines the term “not feasible” in this context to apply when “the application of measurement technology

64 Id.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 206 of 444 Formatted: Normal to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.”
Because of the technological and econom ic limitations described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to establish numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for shuttle kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures that are economically infeasible for the sanitaryware industry. Consequently, we are proposing a work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns under CAA section 112(h). 2
. Work Practice Standard The work practice standard for sanitarywar e shuttle kilns proposed in today’s Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes
t he following specific provisions: 65

• Each facility would have to u se natural gas or equivalent as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interru ption.
• Each facility would have to d evelop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle kiln, by programming the time and temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on a log sheet.
• Each facility would have to l abel each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle.

65 See the BSCP industry communication titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rule making.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 207 of 444 Formatted: Normal

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the max imum load and each facility would have to document the total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.
• Each facility would have to d evelop and implement maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following items: o Calibration of temperature measuring devices o Controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios o Controls that regulate firing cycles
• Each facility would have to d evelop and maint ain records required for each shu ttle kiln, including logs to document the proper operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the standard.
L
. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements?
As stated in section V.E of this preamble , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns
. We are not proposing alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths
. As noted in section V.B of this preamble, roller and tunnel kilns and dryers typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel kiln involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the kiln to the proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics . Shutdown of a***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 208 of 444 Formatted: Normal roller or tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. Similarly, startup and shutdown of a dryer is the process of raising the temperature to the proper operational temperature or lowering the temperature from t he proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. When the temperature of the kiln or dryer is below the proper operational temperature, ceramic tile and sanitaryware manufacturers typically do not push ceramics into the kiln, so the emiss ions are expected to be much lower during startup and shutdown than during normal operations. While a kiln or dryer is heating to the proper operational temperature during startup or cooling from the operational temperature during shutdown, other parameter s such as exhaust flow rate, moisture content, O 2 concentration and pressure are also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown progresses, as the kiln or dryer does not heat or c ool evenly. The fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the relatively steady

- state conditions needed for valid, accurate results over three test runs using the measurement methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, the emission***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 209 of 444 Formatted: Normal
limit formats chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are not appropriate for use during periods other than normal operation. Specifically, if there is no throughout in the kiln or dryer, emission limits that are in a mass per throughput format would be essentially meaningless. We did not receive any detailed information through the 2010 EPA survey about the startup or shutdown of ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press d ryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns. However, ceramic tile roller kilns

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns are fired at similar or slightly higher temperatures to BSCP tunnel kilns and they would likely use similar APCD to comply with t he standards. Therefore, we expect that the issues described in section IV.E of this preamble associated with venting low

- temperature kiln exhaust through an APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also apply to an
APCD on a ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile p ress dryer , ceramic tile spray dryer or sanitaryw are tunnel kiln . We also expect that the low temperature set points would be about the same as for BSCP tunnel kilns, as those temperatures are based on the tolerance of the APCD. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryer s and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 210 of 444 Formatted: Normal sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required t o vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reache s 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no cer amics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. W hen the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the

owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section V.G of this preamble.
For ceramic tile roller kilns , floor tile press dryer s, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can meet the proposed standards without an APCD, there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kiln s.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 211 of 444 Formatted: Normal
However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore , we are proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns or

sa nitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be put into the kiln or dry er once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. When there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble )
. We are not proposing alternate standards (either work practice standards or an alternate numeric emission limit) for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected to comply wi th the emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown. We did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey suggesting that alternate standards for p eriods of startup and shutdown are needed for these sources. Glazing operations are intermittent in***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 212 of 444 Formatted: Normal nature during normal operations, so emissions during startup and shutdown would not be expected to be different than emissions during normal operations.
M
. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements ? We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the requirements of this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. These requirements are descr ibed in detail in sections V. F and
V. G of this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary to ensure that the emission standards are being met and the work practices are being followed and that APCD an d equipment are maintained and operated properly. Further, t hese proposed requirements ensure compliance with this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule without imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them. We are pr oposing that initial compliance with the emission limits for HF , HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would also require 5

- year repeat performance tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating properly and that its performance has not deteriorated.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 213 of 444 Formatted: Normal
The majority of test methods that this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would re quire for the performance stack tests ( e.g. , EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the proposed emission limits are based were conducted using these test methods. When a perform ance test is conducted, we are proposing that parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require continuous parameter moni toring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these parameters within the operating limits established during the performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring requirements because they produce data that will be useful to both the owners or opera tors and the EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution
. The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the clay ceramics industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 214 of 444 Formatted: Normal and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate a nd chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems; periodic inspections for water curtains; and annual inspections for baffles. If applicable for demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl standard, t he k iln monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the kiln process rate. To demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan standard for those affected sources without an ACI system, the monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the operating temperature for the affected process (tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer), because the formation and destruction of dioxins/furans are influenced by temperatur e conditions. Many of these CPMS are standard features on ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other standards for similar industries.
In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for kilns equipped with a FF ( e.g. , a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand

- alone FF) to either install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being propo sed, BLD systems have also been used in other standards in similar industries. We have also determined that***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 215 of 444 Formatted: Normal periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . Periodic VE checks have also been proposed for affected sources without an add

- on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.
N
. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule? Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which affected sources must comply with the em ission standards. Under CAA section 112(i)(1), n ew or reconstructed units must be in compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final rule , whichever is later. ( Th e final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register
. ) Under CAA section 112(i)(3), e xisting sources are allowed

u p to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, install and test any control systems that may need to be retrofitted o nto existing sources, as well as obtain permits for the use of add

- on controls.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 216 of 444 Formatted: Normal
The compliance data for e xisting area sources that subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from the date they become major sources to come into compliance , which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing sources discussed in the previous paragraph
. Further, under the current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source become s a major source by the addition of equipment or operations that meet the definition of new affected source under this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.
O
. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the proposed rule? We are proposing that owner/operators would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 9 of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of, this prop osed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep records on the firing time and temperature cycle for each***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 217 of 444 Formatted: Normal sanitaryware shuttle kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the amount of product fired in the shuttle kiln, to address the operational factors that impact HAP emissions from shuttle kilns and demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard for shuttle kilns (discussed further in section VI. K .1 of this preamble).
In addition, w e are proposin g that the owner or operator keep records and submit a report of each malfunction and the corrective action taken as part of the next semiannual compliance report . The proposed compliance report would provide information on each type of malfunction which o ccurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, which is discussed fur ther in section III .I of this preamble. We request comment on ways that we could streamline the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 218 of 444 Formatted: Normal

P
. How does the proposed rule affect permits? The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit issued under an EPA

- approved State operating permit program. The operating permit progr ams are developed under title V of the CAA and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If the facility is operating in the first 3 years of

an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate th e requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule . If the facility is in the last 2 years of an operating permit, the owner or operator will need to incorporate the requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the pe rmit.
**VII . Summary of the Environmental, Energy**  **and Economic Impacts**  **of the Proposed**  **Standards**
A. What are the cost and emission s reduction impacts? Table 1 3 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions reductions for existing sources under the BSCP manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule.

**Table 1**  **3 -**  **Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP**  **and Clay Ceramics**  **Existing Sources a**  **(2011 dollars)**

**Industry Cost (**  **million )**  **Emissions red uctions (tpy)** 

**Capital Annual**  **HF HCl**  **Cl 2**  **Non -**  **Hg HAP**  **metals b**  **Hg PM**  **PM 2.5**  **SO 2**  BSCP $ 5 5 .9 $ 19.0 410 24. 0 2.09 3
. 79 0.0 590 35 9 17 2 255***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 219 of 444 Formatted: Normal

**Industry Cost (**  **million )**  **Emissions red uctions (tpy)** 

**Capital Annual**  **HF HCl**  **Cl 2**  **Non -**  **Hg HAP**  **metals b**  **Hg PM**  **PM 2.5**  **SO 2**  Clay Ceramics $0. 1 02 $0.0 458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring. b Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.
c PM 2.5 = particulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
.
The nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed
BSCP manufacturing rule are expected to total $5 5 .9 million and $1 9.0 million, respectively (2011 dollars) . The nationwi de HAP emissions reductions achieved under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule are expected to total 4 40 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented in the technical memorand a titled “ Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP ” and “ Monitoring and T esting Requirements and Costs for the BSCP NESHAP ” in
D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are expected for these sources. However, these facilities will incur monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Clay Ceramics***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 220 of 444 Formatted: Normal manufacturing rule
. These costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled “ Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP ” in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290
. There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The five facilities that were major source s at the time of t he 2008 and 2010 EPA survey s have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area sources
. Consequently , none of the known tile facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , which means that no costs or emissions reductions are expected for tile affected sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. We request comment on whether we need to finalize the standards for ceramic tile manufacturing even though there currently are no maj or

sources . B. What are the secondary impacts? Table 1 4 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for existing sources under the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed rule.
**Table 1**  **4 —**  **Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics**  **Existing Sources**  **a**

**Control option Secondary**  **air emissions (tpy)**  **Energy impacts**  **(MMBtu/yr) Solid**  **waste impacts** 

**(tpy) PM**  **PM 2.5**  **CO NO**  **X SO**  **2** BSCP 1. 93 0. 646 3. 60 2 8.0 81.7 2 68 ,000 8,630***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 221 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a PM 2.5 = pa rticulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter ; CO = carbon monoxide ; NO X = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year .
The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the
BSCP manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule i nclude s secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts. Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to meet the proposed limits ( i.e. , increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the
APCD and solid waste impacts consist of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste (not reused or recycled). Under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , the n ationwide secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, carbon monoxide ( CO ) , nitrogen oxides ( NO X ) and SO 2 are expected to total 1 15 tpy , with energy impacts of 2 68 ,000 million British thermal units per year ( MM Btu/yr ) and solid waste impacts of 8,630 tpy
. T he methodology used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented in the technical memorandum “ Development of Cost and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 222 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Emission Red uction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP ” in D ocket ID No.
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1
. As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , so there are no secondary impacts expected for these

sources. There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The f ive facilities that were major source s at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA survey s have already taken the necessary steps to become syn thetic area sources . Consequently, none of the known ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule , which means that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected sources under th e proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule
. C. What are the economic impacts? For the BSCP Manufacturing source category , t he average national brick price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4 percent or $3.29 per 1,000 S tandard Brick Equivalent (S BE ) (2011 dollars) , while overall domestic production falls by 1.1 percent or 38 million bricks per year. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 223 of 444 Formatted: Normal
Based on the resul ts of the small entity screening analysis for BSCP Manufacturing , the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the BSCP manufacturing rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities . As a result, the EPA initiated a SBAR P anel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
For c lay c eramics m anufacturing , one s anitary w are company

owns major sources and will incur costs. That affected company is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 0.001 percent of sales for the affected company . Hence, the economic impact for compliance is minimal. Because no small firms face significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small entities. Thus , the proposed Clay Ceramics regulation is not expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
. For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses , please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA ) for th e BSCP manufacturing rule , “Regulatory Impa ct Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is available in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
. D. What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule ? Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of this the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will generate benefits***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 224 of 444 Formatted: Normal by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, NO X and SO 2 . SO 2 and NO X are precursors to PM 2.5 ( particulate matter with p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diame ter ) and Nox is a precursor to ozone. The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co

- benefits for this proposed rule. For this proposed rule, we were only able to quantify the health co

- benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM 2.5 from emission reductions of SO 2 and directly emitted PM 2.5 because of methodological limitations associated with quantifying and monetizing HAP benefits . We estimate the monetized c o - benefits of the proposed amendments of the BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3

- percent discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7

- percent discount rate. Using alternate relationships between
PM 2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co

- b enefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these two estimates. 66 A summary of the emission reduction and monetized co

- benefits estimates for this proposed BSCP manufacturing rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 1 5 of this preamble.

66 Roman, et al., 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mort ality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S., ” Environ. Sci. Technol. , 42, 7, 2268

– 2274.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 225 of 444 Formatted: Normal
**Table 1**  **5 -**  **Summary of the Monetized PM 2.5**  **Co -**  **Benefits for Brick and**  **Structural Clay Products**  **Manufacturing NESHAP for in 2018 (millions of 2011 dollars)**  **a,b**

**Pollutant Emission**  **reductions ( tpy**  **) Total monetized co**  **** **bene fits**  **(3 percent Discount)**  **Total monetized co**   ** benefits** **(7 percent Discount)**  Directly emitted PM 2.5 170 45 to 100 4 1 to 92
PM 2.5 precursors SO 2 173 7 to 16 6 to 14

a All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized co

- benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of PM 2.5 precursors, such as SO 2 and direct ly emitted PM 2.5 . It is important to note that the monetized co

- benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide ( NO 2 ) , exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. b PM co

- benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.

These co

- benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM 2.5 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to m eet this proposed rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this proposed rule. Instead, we used a “benefit

- per - ton” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit

- per - ton esti mates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of
PM 2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM 2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 226 of 444 Formatted: Normal
emissions in specific sectors. These benefit

- per - ton estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. (2012) , 67 but they have since been updated to reflect the studies and population data in the 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAA QS ) RIA. 68 Specifically, we multiplied the benefit

per - ton estimates from the “ Non

- EGU Point other” category by the corresponding emission reductions. 69 All national

- average benefit

- per - ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions in this rulemaking and thus , they may not reflect the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific location. Mor e information regarding the derivation of the benefit

- per - ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support document, which is available in D ocket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.

67 Fann, N., K.R. Baker and C.M. Fulcher. 2012 . “Characterizing the PM 2.5 - related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S.” Environment International 49 41

– 151. 68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revi sions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf
. 69 U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM 2.5 precursors from 17 sectors
. Research Triangle Park, NC. January.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 227 of 444 Formatted: Normal These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of
t heir chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

- per - ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 2.5 co benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study 70 and the extended Six Cities cohort study. 71 In the RIA for this rule, which is available in D ock et ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 , we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman et al., 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM 2.5 - mortality relationship. Considering a substantial body of published scientific li terature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and

70 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito and G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality and Long

term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132

- 1141
. 71 Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fin e Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow

- Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.” Environ Health Perspect. Jul y ;120(7):965

- 70
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 228 of 444 Formatted: Normal clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter 72 documents the association between elevated
PM 2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board, concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that

a no - threshold model most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

- r esponse relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine particles is without a threshold. In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 concentrations th at coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the

o bserved data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses ( e.g. , lowest measured level ( LML ) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study) a llow readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual

72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) . EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

– RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at < http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546 >.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 229 of 444 Formatted: Normal
mean PM 2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM 2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in reported a ssociations becomes appreciably less and the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality im provements. For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data are not available due to time or resource limitations and thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each
PM 2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM 2.5 level using the source apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefit

- per - ton estimates for this sector. Using the Krewski, e t al. (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 μg/m 3 . Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/m 3 . It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 230 of 444 Formatted: Normal population and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are n ot consistent with results from rules that had air quality modeling. Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographi c coverage) and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit analysis for this proposed rule provides a reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS RIA 73 because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring d ata to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this proposed rule and using a benefit

- per - ton approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The

73 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Re gulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http:// www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 231 of 444 Formatted: Normal
2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS benefits analysi s provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions.
It should be noted that the monetized co

- benefits estimates provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit categories, including exposure to HAP, NO X and ozone exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment . Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for this proposed rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these unquantifie d benefits in the RIA for these proposed amendments the rule
. The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefits impacts , including an increase of 28 tons of NO X , less than 2 tons of PM, 3 tons of CO a nd 82 tons of SO 2 each year. Given the insignificant increase , only secondary effects of PM and SO 2 were included in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rule, “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, ” which is available in D ocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 232 of 444 Formatted: Normal
**VIII . Public Participation**  **and Request for Comment** We request comment on all aspects of th e proposed rule for
BSCP M a nufacturing and Clay C eramics M anufacturing , including any alternate approaches that the EPA is considering (see section IV. Q of this preamble for further discussion on these approaches )
. During this rulemaking, we conducted outreach to small entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of th e proposed
BSCP manufacturing rule
. (Note: We did not convene a SBAR Panel for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule because none of the major source facilities subject to the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are owned by a small entit y .) As part of the SBAR Panel process , we conducted outreach with representatives from various s mall entities that would be affected by th e proposed BSCP manufacturing rule . We met with these small entity representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the BSCP manufacturing rule ma king on their industries/sectors. We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP manufacturing rule making, possible regulatory approaches,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 233 of 444 Formatted: Normal preliminary cost and economic impacts and possible rulemaking alterna tives. We met with SERs from the BSCP industry that will be impacted directly by the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet. The Panel recei ved written comments from the SERs following the meeting in response to discussions at the meeting and the questions posed to the SERs by the agency . The SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the BSCP manufacturing rule ’s impact on small businesses. A copy of the final Panel report is available in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291.
**I X**  **. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving R egulation and Regulatory Review Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a n “ economically significant regulatory action ” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
. ” Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order s 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 234 of 444 Formatted: Normal 2011) and any changes made in response to O MB recommendations have been documented in the docket s for this action. In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action . This analysis is contained in “ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP
. ” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 ) and the analysis is briefly summarized here
. The EPA’s study estimates that affected BSCP fac ilities will incur total annualized costs of $21 million (2011 dollars) under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , including costs of emission controls, testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs for the alternate approach are estimated to be $31 million (2011 dollars) . The EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. T he EPA estimated tha t one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the proposed standards
. Under the alternate approach , t he EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 235 of 444 Formatted: Normal
The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the proposed rule , as described in section VII of this preamble. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2. 5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource and methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAP each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAP each year through the alternate standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule would red uce several non

- Hg HAP metals emissions ( i.e. , antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium) each year. The EPA estimate s the total monetized

co - benefits to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at

a 3 percent discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7 percent discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the proposed standards
. Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will exceed the costs.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 236 of 444 Formatted: Normal
The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP . Only two firms are estimated to incur costs as a result of the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule and they only incur costs associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total annualized cost s are only $55,900 (2011 dollars) an d both firms’ estimated costs of complying with the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are less than 0.001 percent of their sales. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed rule have be en submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
. The information collection request ( ICR ) document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01 . The ICR documen t prepared by the EPA for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2510.01
. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 237 of 444 Formatted: Normal information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the N ESHAP General Provisions, t he proposed rule include s paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5

- year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M pla n, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction
. There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are projected to b ecome synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
. For these 67 facilities, t he annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with th e proposed BSCP standards ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,0 63 labor hours per year , at a cost of $ 79 6,255 /yr. N o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 238 of 444 Formatted: Normal are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $ 983 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 y ears after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 103 hours per year , at a total labor cost of $5,329 per
year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). There are three clay ceramics facilities that are curren tly major sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule that we are proposing . For these three facilities, t he annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics standards (averaged over the first 3 ye ars after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to total 674 labor hours per year at a cost of $35,653 /yr. As with the BSCP standards, n o capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period . The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $44 /yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 4.6 hours per year, at a t otal labor cost of $239 per
year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 239 of 444 Formatted: Normal Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden ( e.g. , performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report, records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule , we estimate an average annual rec ordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $350,075/yr over this period, for a to tal annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours
per year, at a total labor cost of $20 7,946 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) For the proposed Clay Ceram ics manufacturing rule , we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1,448 labor hours per year, at a cost of $76,519 /yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $27,368 /yr and annual operating and mainten ance costs of $21,101 /yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 240 of 444 Formatted: Normal $48,469 /yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the a gency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket for each rule, which includes this
IC R, under Docket ID N o. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291 (for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290 (for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See the **ADDRESSES** section at the beginning of this action for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Sin ce OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 241 of 444 Formatted: Normal
after **[ insert date of publication in the**  **Federal Register ]**  , a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by **[ insert date 30 days after the date**  **of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** . The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant

econ omic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of l ess than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not

- for

profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 242 of 444 Formatted: Normal
is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP manufactu ring facilities. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120 ) industry and the SBA (2013 ) defines a small business in this industry as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 parent companies that are small businesses. Small entities affected by the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP are small businesses that own clay ceramics manufacturing facili ties. Affected parent companies of ceramic tile facilities fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120 ) industry and affected parent companies of sanitaryware facilities fall under the Pottery, Cer amics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 327110) industry. However, we have determined that no small entities would be subject to the clay ceramics proposed standards. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an
IRFA that examines the i mpact of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is included in Section 5 of the RIA and is available for review in the docket for the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 243 of 444 Formatted: Normal proposed BSCP manufacturing rul e (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1) and is summarized below.
1 . Need for the R ule The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish emission standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the maximum degree of emission re duction. In the Administrator ’ s judgment, the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the BSCP source ca tegory are being proposed. 2 . Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing

so urces must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with le ss than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A)***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 244 of 444 Formatted: Normal and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider more st ringent “beyond

- the

- floor” control options. When considering beyond

- the

- floor options, the EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d). 3
. Affected S mall E ntities Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 parent companies that are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost

- to

sales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small br ick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate approach , two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
4 . Reporting , R ecordkeeping, and O ther C ompliance R equirements Respondents would be required to provide one

- time and periodic notifications, including initial notification, notification of performance tests, and notification of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 245 of 444 Formatted: Normal compliance status. Respondents would also be required to submit semiannual reports document ing compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the EPA’s ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation supporting information included in these notificat ions and reports, as well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources and APCD at the facility.
5 . Related Federal Rules The EPA determined that there are no related federal rules for this source category. 6 . Significant Alternatives The EPA has included provisions in the proposed rule where possible to minimize the burden on all affected entities, including small entities
. As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREF A ) , the EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule ’s requirements. Seventee n SERs associated with brick manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 246 of 444 Formatted: Normal addition to the materials that the SERs received for the pre

Panel outreach, the SERs were provided with bac kground information to help them prepare for the teleconference and prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small

- entity comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Doc ket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 029 1)
. The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed
BSCP manufacturing rule . The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent feasible, as described below:

• T he panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take comment on the feasibility of work practice standards for Hg and other metals. The discussion of work practices for Hg and other metals should clearly identify any areas where the agency believes that the data do not support work practices to allow for meaningful comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an alternative in the final BSCP manufacturing rule
. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practices for***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 247 of 444 Formatted: Normal dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg and for non

- Hg HAP metals, the EPA is specifically requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work practice standards for no n - Hg HAP metals and for Hg are appropriate.

• The panel recommended that the EPA co

- propose both a health

- based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to propose a numerical health

- based limit. Propose d rule : The EPA is proposing a health

- based emission limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels and other factors. Proposed rule : The EPA evaluated the data to determine if subcategories of sources were supported, including subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg in two subcategories based on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 248 of 444 Formatted: Normal for all pollutants, in cluding total non

- Hg HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits for PM or total non

- Hg HAP metals for all tunnel kilns. The ability to c ompl y with the equivalent lb/hr total non

- Hg HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions.

• The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust dryers would affect emissions and control costs. Propos ed rule : The proposed rule requests comment on whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice standards for startup and shutdown. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns.

• The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can establish that the data available to the agency represent the best

- performing sources consistent with section 112 of the CAA and relevant case law. Proposed rule : The test data for PM (the surrogate for***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 249 of 444 Formatted: Normal
total non

- Hg HAP metals) showed that kilns controlled with

a FF

- based APCD ( e.g. , DIFF, D LS/FF) are the better performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the industry are controlled with a FF

- based APCD. Therefore, the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the best

- performing sources with a
FF

- based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish that the data available to the agency represented the best

performing sources for Hg control. Therefore, the MACT limit for Hg is based upon the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data.
We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities.
D . Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by la w, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. This action does not contain a f ederal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local or tribal government s, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. This action is not expected to impact state, local or tribal governments. The nationwide annual***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 250 of 444 Formatted: Normal cost to the affected industry is estimated to be $19.0 million
per y ea r for the proposed BSCP manufact uring rule and $54,100
per y ea r for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule (2011 dollars) . Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contain s no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments . I t contains no requirements that apply to such governments , nor does it impose obligations upon them
. E . Executive Order 13132 : Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned or operated by state governments and nothing in this proposal will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action . In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local g overnments,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 251 of 444 Formatted: Normal the EPA specifically solicit s comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
F
. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The action impose s requirements on owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments. Although Executive Order 13175 does not appl y to this action , t he EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
G . Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Orde r 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23 , 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5

- 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action i s not subject to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 252 of 444 Formatted: Normal Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 , dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals, which will provide some increased protection of health for people of all ages including children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly affect productivity, competition or prices in the energy sector.
I . National Technology Tra nsfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104

- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless t o do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by volun tary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 253 of 444 Formatted: Normal directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the a gency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards
. The EPA proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19

- 10

- 1981 , Part 10 , “ Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses ,” is acceptable as an al ternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and n ot the instrumental procedures. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) , “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , ” is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
ASTM D 6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) , “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) , ” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). ASTM D6 348

- 03 ( Reapproved 2010), “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy , ” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) t he test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348

- 03, Sections A1 through A8 are***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 254 of 444 Formatted: Normal mandatory; and (2) i n ASTM D6348

- 03 Annex A 5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A 5
. 5 ). In ord er for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte ( i.e. , the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field measurements must be cor rected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and , specifically , invites the publ ic to identify potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in one or both of these regulation s . J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations
Ex ecutive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 255 of 444 Formatted: Normal Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of t heir mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United
States. The EP A has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations because they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income or indigenous populations
. The proposed rule establish es national standards that will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 , dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus the proposed rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on human healt h and the environment.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** **NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and**  **NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing P**  **age 256**  **of 444**  **List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 6**  **3** Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
.

____________________________ Dated :

____________________________ Gina McCarthy, Administrator.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 257 of 444

F or the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows: **PART 63 --**  **NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR**
**POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES**  1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: **Authority:** 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
. 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (f)( 1); b. Revising paragraph (g)(74); c. Revising paragraph (g)(84); d. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and e. Revising paragraph (l)(2). The revisions and additions read as follows: **§63.14 Incorporations by reference.**
* * * * * (f) * * * (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

– 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [P art 10, Instruments and App aratus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved for §§63.309 (k) , 63.457(k), 63. 772(e) and (h), 63.865 (b) , 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.3166 (a) , 63.3360 (e) , 63.3545 (a) , 63.3555 (a) , 63.4166 (a) , 63.4362 (a) , 63.4766 (a) ,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 258 of 444
63.4965 (a) , 63.5160 (d) , table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307 (c) , 63.9323 (a) , 63.11148 (e) , 63.11155 (e) , 63.11162 (f) , 63.11163 (g) , 63.11410 (j) , 63.11551 (a) , 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart
ZZZZZ
. * * * * * (g) * * * (74) ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, (Appr oved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU , and appendix B to subpart
UUUUU. * * * * * (84) ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidiz ed, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), (Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for §§63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 t o subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 259 of 444 subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * * (95) ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method , IBR approved for table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and table 4 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * * (l) * * * (2) EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Det ection Guidance, September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f). 3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows: **Subpart JJJJJ --**  **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants**  **for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing**
Sec. **What This Subpart Covers** 63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 260 of 444
**Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? **General C ompliance Requirements**  63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements** 63.8435 By what date must I con duct performance tests? 63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8455 How d o I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compli ance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Notifications, Reports, and Records** 63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8485 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8490 What records must I keep? 63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? **Other Requirements and Information** 63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 261 of 444 **Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63**  Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Work Practice Standards Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Req uirements for Reports Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

-- Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ **What This Subpart Covers §63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?**  This subpart establishes national emission limitations for hazardous ai r pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. **§63.8385 Am I subject to this su bpart?**  You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a BSCP manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile;***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 262 of 444 extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural cla y products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. **§63.8390 What p arts of my plant does this subpart cover?**  (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility. (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected source s are described in paragraph (b)(1) and (2 ). (1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are an affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product will be called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 263 of 444 kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln. (2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of t his subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. (2) Raw material processing and handling. (3) Dryers. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after **[ insert date of publication in**  **the Federal Register ]**  , and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reco nstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2. (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 264 of 444 **§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is after **[ insert date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** but before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RU LE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGI STER]. (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [ THE DAT E 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tabl es 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 265 of 444
later th an [ THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) If you have an existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (d) If you have a new area source ( i.e. , an area source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after **[ insert**  **date of publication in the Federal Register ]**  ) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in subpart A of this part . Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in th is subpart.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 266 of 444
**Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards §63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards** 
**must I meet?** (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you. **§63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system
. Use an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution cont rol device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes
. Us e low

- HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 267 of 444
emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet the work practice standards for affected periodic kilns , you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. (c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. (d) To meet the work p ractice standards for affected tunnel kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart
. **General Compliance Requirements §63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with**  **this subpart?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. (b) Except as specifi ed in paragraph (d) of this section,
you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 268 of 444 pollution control practices for minimizin g emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with ope ration and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and i n spection of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8395 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) ( e.g. , continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and verifi ed and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. ( c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8425. (d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to t his subpart and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 269 of 444 must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue operating the kiln upon approval by the Administrator provided you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request a routine control device maintenance exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenanc e activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during kiln shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source’s title V permit.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 270 of 444 (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and the control device is o ffline. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (e) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in this subpart at all times. (f) You must be in compliance with the provisio ns of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 8 to this subpart. **§63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans?**  (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this su bpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting authority upon request. (b) Your OM&M plan must inclu de, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 271 of 444 (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8405. The limits must be based on values of the monitored pa rameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long

- term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendations. (5) Procedur es for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD). (6) Perf ormance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria ( e.g. , calibrations).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 272 of 444 (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3 ), (7), and (8)
. (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedur es consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d)
. (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8485 and 63.8490. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the operating parameters to the allowab le limits. (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance. (13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to tak e the kiln control device out of service for routine maintenance,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 273 of 444 as specified in §63.8420( d), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln during periods of routine m aintenance of the kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline. (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln is operating and the control devic e is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a notificati on of performance test to the Administrator as specified in §63.7(b). (2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the
per formance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under §63.9(h).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 274 of 444 (d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performan ce test. **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements §63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?**  For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in §63.8395 and according to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2). **§63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?**  (a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission lim its specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test. (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to ch ange the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 275 of 444 **§63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits?**  (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Before conducting the performance test, you must install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. (d) Performance test s shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. Th e owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to s upport that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 276 of 444 (e) You must conduct at least three sep arate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of pro duction for each test run using Equation 1:

P ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour. (2) To determine compliance with the health

- based standard for acid gas HAP for BSCP manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) C alculate the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF , HCl, and Cl 2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 2:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 277 of 444
                +               + =
2 2 Cl HCl Cl HF HCl HF HCl i RfC RfC E RfC RfC E E E (Eq. 2)

Where:
E i = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hou r E HCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HF = emission s of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E Cl2 = emission s of Cl 2 , kilograms (pounds) per hour RfC HCl = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfC Cl2 = r eference concentration for chlorine , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility u sing Equation 3: 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 (Eq. 3)

Where:
E total = HCl

- equivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E i = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at fa cility***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 278 of 444 (iii) Compare this value to the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart. ( g) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart. (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln,

c alculate the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF , HCl, and Cl 2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation
4: 

## ( ) ( ) ( ) 

# ( )                 +         + =
2 2 max Cl HCl iCl HF HCl iHF iHCl i i RfC RfC MP RfC RfC MP MP Cap E (Eq. 4)

Where:
E max i = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour Cap i = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour
MP iH Cl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagr am (ton) of fired product
MP iH F = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iC l2 = mass of Cl 2 per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl 2 per megagram (ton) of fired produ ct RfC HCl = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 279 of 444

meter RfC Cl2 = reference concentration for Cl 2 , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using Equation 5: 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 max

max (Eq. 5 )

Where:
E max t otal = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility , kilograms (pounds) per hour
E max i = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , determine the maximum process rate for the tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit . The maximum process rate would become your operating limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 280 of 444


## ( ) ( ) 

# ( )                 +         + =

2 2 max

Cl HCl iCl HF HCl iHF iHCl i RfC RfC MP RfC RfC MP MP eq - HCl P (Eq. 6 )

Where:
P max i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per hour HCl

- eq = HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26 kilograms (57 pounds) per hour
MP iH Cl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iC l2 = mass of Cl 2 per unit of production for kiln i, k ilograms (pounds) of Cl 2 per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl = r eference concentration fo r HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter RfC Cl2 = r eference concentration for Cl 2 , 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , determine the combination of maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl

- equi valent remains at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit . The***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 281 of 444 maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan
. (h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in parag raphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that th e operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 282 of 444 (2) Establish site

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternativ e monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. **§63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?**  (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. T o have a valid hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63. 8420( d)). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 283 of 444 as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63. 8420( d)). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring eq uipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through ( 3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibra tion check.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 284 of 444 (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that provides a represen tative measurement of the
pressure. (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensiti vity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s
spec ified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 285 of 444 (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points every 8 hours of process operation. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for co ntinuity. (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the
“F abric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14)
. Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufac turer’s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 286 of 444
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic fo ot) or less. (3) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection syst em must be equipped with an audible alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pres sure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple det ectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay t ime according to section 5.0 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 287 of 444 Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14)
. (10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365

- day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Rec ord each adjustment. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) a nd (2) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 288 of 444 (g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and (5) of this section and must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed system replaces limestone at least as frequently as the schedule set during the performance test. (h) Requests for approval of al ternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8445(h) and 63.8(f). **§63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emissio n limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 5 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in §63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in §63.8480(e).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 289 of 444 **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8465 How do I monitor and colle**  **ct data to demonstrate continuous compliance?**  (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, a nd routine control device maintenance as specified in §63. 8420( d) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 290 of 444 averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation fro m the monitoring requirements. **§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice stand ard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart. (b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with
an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and ea ch operating limit established as required in §63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described in §§63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 291 of 444 malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this sub part. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8485. (d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63. 8420(d) are not

v iolations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the approved routine control device maintenance exemption. (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to th is subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the affected sou rce is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 292 of 444 (2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly initiate and complete corre ctive actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must report these deviations by following the requirements in §63.8485. **Notifica tions, Reports, and Records**  **§63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b ) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) As speci fied in §63.9(b)( 2) , if you start up your affected source before [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 293 of 444 PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AF TER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) As specified in §63.9( b)(2), if you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart. (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at l east 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in §63.7(b)(1). (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you must su bmit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this sec tion. (1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 294 of 444 before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, according to §63.10(d)(2). (2) In addition to the require ments in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section in your Notification of Compliance Status. (i) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentatio n and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. (ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specification s for bag leak detection systems in §63.8450(e). (3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards), you must submit the Notif ication of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the compliance demonstrations. (f) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63.8420( d), you must submit your r equest***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 295 of 444 for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date. **§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting perio d would begin on March 1 and end on December 31. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (3) Each subsequent compliance repo rt must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 296 of 444 (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for c ompliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiann ual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1 ) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, c ertifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 297 of 444 (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance was incl uded in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63. 8420( d). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 298 of 444
maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance exemption during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous se miannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equatio n 7. 

## ( ) 100

c p c p KU KU DT DT RM + +
= (Eq. 7 )

Where:
RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device was offline for routine control device maintenance
DT p = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual compliance period
KU p = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period
KU c = Ki ln uptime for the current semiannual compliance period (5) A report of the most recent burner tune

- up conducted to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpart. (6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits or operating limits) that apply to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 299 of 444 you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

of

- co ntrol as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or opera ting limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of th is section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identification of the sources for which there was a deviation. (2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (3) The applicable operating limit or work practice standard from which you deviated and eith er the parameter***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 300 of 444 monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you deviated from the work practice standard. (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control devi ce maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identification of the sources for which there was a deviation. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero (low

- level) and high

- le vel checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out

- of

control, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan. (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 301 of 444 (5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit during the deviation , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. (6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a deviation. (7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reportin g period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipme nt problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (10) A brief description of the process units. (11) A brief description of the CMS. (12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control equipment since the last reporting period.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 302 of 444 ( f ) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) The number, duration, and a brief description for eac h type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. (2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize emissions in accordance with §6 3
. 8420(b) , including actions taken to correct a malfunction. (g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this sub part in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report according to Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 C FR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 303 of 444 limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any oblig ation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( h ) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this section. (1) For d ata collected using test methods supported by the
EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA’s ERT
W eb site ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ) at the time of the test , y ou must submit the results of the performance
test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface ( CEDRI ). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) ( http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp ) .) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of submitting performance test data in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 304 of 444 language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site, once the XML schema is available
. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential b usiness information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT (or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA’s ERT W eb site once the XML schema is available) , including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact dis c, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator Group Leader, Me asurement Policy Group , MD C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file (or alternate file ) with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the
EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test met hods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site at the time of the test , you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 305 of 444
**§63.8490 What records must I kee p?**  (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in §63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your appro ved routine control device maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under §63. 8420(d). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 306 of 444 initiated and complet ed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions t aken to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and the corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation , and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
R ecor d and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) For each affected source, records of product ion rates on a fired

- product basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures. (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the
APCD. (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records docume nting conformance.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 307 of 444 (7) L ogs of the information required in paragraphs ( c )( 7 ) (i) through ( iii ) of this section to document proper operation of your periodic kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each periodi c kiln. If all periodic kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets
. (ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each bat ch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii ) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. (8) L ogs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart
. (9) R ecords of burner tune

- ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 308 of 444 (10) For periods of startup, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each startup period , logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the time the first bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaust stopped bypassing the control device. For periods of shutdown, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each shutdown period , logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the time the last bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaust began bypassing the control device
. ( 11 ) For each malfunction, records of the following information: (i ) Reco rds of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation ( i.e. , process equipment) or the air pollution control and monitoring equipment. (ii ) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with §6 3
. 84 20(b) , including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 309 of 444 **§63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?** (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. **Oth er Requirements and Information**  **§63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?** Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63. 16 apply to you. **§63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?** (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addit ion to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 310 of 444 enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegat ing implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part , the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transfer red to the State, local, or tribal
agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in §§63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in §63.8395, and the non

- opacity emission limitations in §63.8405. (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90. (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in §63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 311 of 444 (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart. **§6 3.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?**  Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows: Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that

o perates on triboelectric, light

- scattering, light

transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited to, f ace brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 312 of 444
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation e stablished by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart f or any affected source required to obtain such a permit
. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubb er/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means an APCD that includes a limestone storage bin, a reaction chamber that is essentially a packed tower filled with limestone, and may or may not include a***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 313 of 444 peeling drum that mechanically scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate the stone for reuse. Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Initial startup means: (1) for a new or reconstructed tunne l kiln controlled with a DLA, the time at which the temperature in the kiln first reaches 260 ° C (500 ° F) and the kiln contains product; or (2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel kiln controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or wet scrubber (WS), the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing BSCP, whichever is earlier. Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a tunnel ki ln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than to a sawdust dryer. Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 314 of 444 Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8), and as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln. Plant site means all contiguous or adjo ining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right

- of

- way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any c ombination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and starting the production process.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 315 of 444
Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP. Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere. Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work
pr actice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. **Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63** As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to yo u: **Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits*****E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 316 of 444

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at facility, including all process streams. HF, HCl, and Cl 2 emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent, under the health

- based standard, as determined using Equations 2 and 3. Not applicable.

2. Existing tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg ( 0.16 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 92 mg/dscm ( 0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 ; or ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.00 11 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr) of fired product. 3 . Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥ 10 tph of fired product) , including all process streams
. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) ( 2.2 E

- 05 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 29 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm ) at 7% O 2 ; or ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr). 4. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 ; or

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 5. New or reconstructed tunnel kiln, including all process streams a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product. i . PM emissions must not exceed 15 mg/dscm ( 0.0066 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 ; or***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 317 of 444

**For each... You must meet the**  **following emission limits...**  **Or you must comply with the**  **following...** ii. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/hr) of fired product. 6. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E

- 04 kg/hr (2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). 7. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. Hg emissions must not exceed 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 . ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Operating Limits**

**For each...**  **You must...** 1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; or, if you are monitor ing t he bypass stack damper position , initiate corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damp er is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan ; and b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA a t all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 318 of 444

**For each...**  **You must...** c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack. 2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 h our of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block rep orting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test for continuous injection systems. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; and c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests; and d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water , maintain the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test.

5. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control. a. Maintain no VE from the stack.

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 319 of 444 As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: **Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Work Practice Standards**

**For each**  **... You must...**  **According to the following requirements...** 1. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop and us e a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln . You must either program t he time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iii. For each firing load, d ocument the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1b; and iv. D evelop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and v. Develop and maintain records for each periodic kiln, as specified in §63. 8490. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions. i. Maintain and inspect the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion. 3. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of startup a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ); and ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ). 4. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once the kiln exhaust te mperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ); and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 320 of 444

**For each**  **... You must...**  **According to the following requirements...** ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ).
As stated in §63.8445, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Performance Tests** 

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  1. Tunnel kiln. a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1.
c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Par t 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Method s 3A and 3B.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 321 of 444

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3.

e. Measure HF, HCl and Cl 2 emissions. Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8; or You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid PM ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in w ater droplets emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A. Method 320 of appendix A of this part
. When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part , you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part , unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapprove d 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1

- A8 are mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined for each target analyte.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 322 of 444

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  f. Measure PM emissions or non - Hg HAP metals. i. For PM only: Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3; or ii. For PM or non - Hg HAP metals: Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. To determine PM, weigh the filter and report the results as PM filterable.

g. Measure Hg emissions. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
. 2. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control. Establish the operating limit (s) for kiln process rate if the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart and emissions and production da ta from the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test
. Using the procedures in §63.8445(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate (s) for your kiln(s) that wo uld ensure total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivale nt limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. The maximum process rate (s) would become your site

- specific process rate operating limit(s)
. 3. Tunnel kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg production

based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production

- based emission limits. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performance tests ( e.g. , no. of pushes per hour, no. of bricks per kiln car, weight of a typical fired brick ). You must measure and record the production rate, on a fired

- product basis, of the affected source for each of the three test runs.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 323 of 444

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  4. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Establish the operating limit for the average pressure drop across the DLA. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. You must continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit. b. Establish the operating limit for the limestone feed er setting. Data from the limestone feeder during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. You must ensure that you maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at all times during the perf ormance test. You must establish your limestone feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, one week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the one

- week period that precedes the performance test and during the performanc e test. c. Document the source and grade of limestone used. Records of limestone purchase.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 324 of 444

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  5. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. Establish the operating limit for the lime feeder setting. Data from the lime feeder during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, for the three test runs. If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. 6. T unnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM/ non - Hg HAP metals performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure dro p, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes you r minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 325 of 444

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the pH measurement device during the performance HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pH measurements for the three test runs. The average of the th ree test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid pH operating limit. c. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for th e three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid flow rate operating level . If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals tests, the highest of the average values become you r site

specific operating limit
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 326 of 444

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  7. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS that includes chemical addition to the water. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber chemical feed rate. Data from the chemical feed rate measurement device during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber chemical feed rate, determine and record the block average chemical feed rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour bl ock average of the recorded chemical feed rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific chemical addition rate operating limit. 8. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate valu es for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific activated carbon flow rate operat ing limit.
As stated in §63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Initial Compliance with Emission**  **Limitations and Work Practice Standards*****E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 327 of 444

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** 1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at the facility, including all process streams. a. HF, HCl, and Cl 2 emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent. i. You measure H F , H Cl , and Cl 2 emissions for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, se e §63.14) ; or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14); and ii. You c alculat e the HCl

- equivalent emissions for each kiln using Equation 2 to this subpart; and iii. You sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 3 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl

- equivalent does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr). 2. Existing tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg ( 0.16 lb/ton) of fired product or 92 mg/dscm ( 0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 ; or i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.082 kg/Mg ( 0.16 lb/ton) of fired product or 92 mg/dscm ( 0.040 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.088 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of fired product or 97 mg/dscm (0.043 gr/dscf) at 7% O 2 . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.0 11 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr)
. i. The non

- Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.0 11 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr) ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non - Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0 11 4 kg/hr ( 0.02 3 lb/hr)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 328 of 444

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** 3. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 2.2 E

- 0 5 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 2.2 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 1.2 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.7 E

- 04 lb/hr). 4. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). 5. New or re constructed tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O 2 ; or i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of t he initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 329 of 444

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.011 kg/Mg ( 0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O 2 . b. Non

- Hg HAP metals emissions must not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/hr). i. The non

- Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/ hr); and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which non - Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.001 4 kg/hr ( 0.00 32 lb/hr). 6. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 1.1 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 1.1 E

- 04 kg/hr ( 2.4 E

- 04 lb/hr). 7. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln, including all process streams. a. Hg emissions must not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr). i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 or 5.0 E

- 04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr); and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 330 of 444

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial**  **compliance if...** ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 9.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O 2 . a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln . You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iii. D evelop maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles. 9. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln. a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions. i. Conduct initial inspection of the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); and ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize combustion.
As stated in §63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table:

**Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** ***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 331 of 444

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with a DLA. i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the DLA pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; or continuously monitor ing the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation, and initiating corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damp er is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan ; and ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and storage bin (located at the top of the DLA) contain adequate limestone by performing a daily visual check, which could include one of the following: (1) conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a v isual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the n eed for additional limestone ; and iii. Recording the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; and iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; maintaining records of the source and type of limestone; and v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 332 of 444

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. i. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of tim e taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free

- flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiatin g and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once during each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performanc e test. 3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to §63.84 50(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance test; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 333 of 444

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test; and iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages accordin g to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 and PM/non

- Hg HAP metals performance tests; and iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test. 4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns equipped with ACI system. Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 334 of 444

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  5. Tunnel kiln with no add

- on control a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Tabl e 2 to this subpart for tunnel kilns with no add

- on control. i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the stack.

ii. I f your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent was not at or below the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart , collecting the kiln process rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3

- hour b lock averages according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3

- hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8445(g)(1). 6. Periodic kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the periodic kiln ; and ii. For each firing load, d ocument ing the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in Item 1.a.ii of Table 3 to this subpart; and iii. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and iv. Developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490. 7. Tunnel kiln a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable) and tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion no later than 36 calendar months after the previous tune

- up; and ii. Maintaining records of burner tune

- ups used to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 335 of 444

**For each...**  **For the f**  **ollowing... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  i ii . Submitting a report of most recent tune

- up conducted with compliance report.
As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit**  **the report...** 1. A compliance report. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limits, operating limits) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control as sp ecified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in §63.8485(d) or (e). If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the informa tion in §63.8485(e). Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8485(b).

As stated in §63.8505, you must comply with the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: **Table 8**  **to Subpart JJJJJ of Par t 63**  **-- Applicability of General**  **Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ*****E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 336 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability determination; applicability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 standards. Yes.
§63.3 Units and Abbreviations. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards. Yes.

§63.4 Prohibited Activities. Compliance date; circumvention; severability. Yes.

§63.5 Construction/ Reconstruction. Applicability; applications; approvals. Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)

- (4) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced construction or recon struction after proposal. Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. No.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 337 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.6(b)(7) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were area sources. Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)

- (2) Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)

- (4) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(c)(5) Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & Maintenance. General Duty to minimize emissions. No. See §63.8420(b) for general duty requirement. §63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & Maintenance. Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP
. No. §63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation & Maintenance. Operati on and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations
. Yes.

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 338 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP. No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance Except During SSM. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. No.

§63.6(f)(2)

- (3) Methods for Determining Compliance. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an alternative standard. Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE Standards. Requirements for opacity and VE standards. No, not applicable. §63.6(i) Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential Compliance Exemption. President may exempt source category. Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)

- (2) Performance Test Dates. Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations for emission limits and work practice standards ; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Yes.

§63.7(a) (3) Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of Delay in Performance Testing Due To Force Majeure. Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 339 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.7(b)(1) Notification of Performance Test. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Yes.

§63.7(c ) Quality Assurance(QA)/ Test Plan. Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA procedures for testing. Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing Facilities. Requirements for testing facilities. Yes.
§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. No, §63.8445 specifies requirements.

§63.7(e)(2)

- (3) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative; must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be u sed. Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under Section 114 Administrator's authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative Test Method. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 340 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.7(g) Performance Test Data Analysis. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status. Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of Tests. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart. Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance Specifications. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No. §63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with Flares. Requirements for flares in §63.11 apply. No, not applicable.
§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)

- (3) Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Maintenance consistent with good air pollutio n control practices. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and Predictable SSM. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in SSMP. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSMP. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 341 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. No.

§63.8(c)(2)

- (3) Monitoring System Installation. Must install to get representative e mission and parameter measurements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS Requirements. Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8450 specifies requirements. §63.8(c)(5) Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. COMS minimum procedures. No, not applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS Requirements. Zero and high level calibration check requirements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)

- (8) CMS Requirements. Out

- of

- control periods. Yes. §63.8(d) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes.
§63.8(e) CMS Performance Evaluation. Requirements for CMS performance evaluation. Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)

- (5) Alternative Monitoring Method. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy test for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). No, not applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements. No, not applicable.
§63.9(a) Notification Requirements
. Applicability; State delegation. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 342 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.9(b) Initial Notifications. Requirements for initial notifications. Yes.
§63.9(c) Request for Compliance Extension. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of Performance Test. Notify Administrator 60 days prior. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Notify Administrator 30 days prior. No, not applicable.
§63.9(g)(1) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of performance evaluation. Yes

§63.9(g)(2)

- (3) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded. No, not applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of Compliance Status. Contents; submittal requirements. Yes.

§63.9(i) Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines
. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in Previous Information. Must submit within 15 days after the change. Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Applicability; general information. Yes.
§63.10(b)(1) General Recordkeeping Requirements. General requirements. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 343 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns
. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard
. No. See §63.8490(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. §63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related to SSM. Maintenance records
. Yes. §63.10(b)(2)(iv)

- (v) Records Related to SSM. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM
. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)

- (xii) and (xiv) CMS Records. Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or out

- of

control. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. No, not applicable.

§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability Determinations. Yes.
§63.10(c)(1)

- (15) Records. Additional records for CMS No, §§63.8425 and 63.8490 specify requirements. §63.10(d)(1) and (2) General Reporting Requirements. Requirements for reporting; performance test results reporting. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 344 of 444

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart JJJJJ ?**  §63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE. No, not applicable.
§63.10(d)(4) Progress Reports. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See § 63. 8485(f) for malfunction reporting requirements. §63.10(e)(1)

- (3) Additional CMS Reports. Requirements for CMS reporting. No, §§63.8425 and 63.8485 specify requirements. §63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS data. Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data. No, not applicable.

§63.10(f) Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Procedures for Administrator to waive. Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for flares. No, not applicable. §63.12 Delegation. State authority to enforce standards. Yes.
§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, notifications, requests. Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation by Reference. Materials incorporated by reference. Yes.
§63.15 Availability of Information. Information availability; confidential information. Yes.

§63.16 Performance Track Provisions. Requ i rem e nts for Performance Track member facilities. Yes.

4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as follows:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 345 of 444 **Subpart KKKKK --**  **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics**  **Manufacturing**
Sec. **What This Subpart Covers** 63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Li mitations and Work Practice Standards**  63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet? 63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards? **General Compliance Requirements** 63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans? **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements** 63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests? 63.8590 When mu st I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits? 63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards? **Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 346 of 444 **Notifications, Reports, and Records** 63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.8635 What reports must I submit and when? 63.8640 What records must I keep? 63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
**O ther Requirements and Information**  63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart? **Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63** Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Work Practice Standards Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Toxic E quivalency Factors Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards Table 8 to Sub part KKKKK of Part 63

-- Requirements for Reports Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

-- Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK **What This Subpart Covers §63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?**  This subpart establishes national emission limitations and work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and

c ontinuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 347 of 444 **§63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?** You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wal l tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any singl e HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. **§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?** (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or

rec onstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 348 of 444 (b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln , sanitaryware tunnel kiln , sanitaryware shuttle kiln , ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying , sanitaryware glaze spray booth , ceramic tile spray dryer , and floor tile press dryer is an affected source. (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Kilns that are u sed exclusively for refiring. (2) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products. (3) G laze spray operations that use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis)
. (4) Raw material processing a nd handling. (5) Wall tile press dryers. (6) Sanitaryware ware dryers. (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the affected source began after **[ insert date of publication in**  **the Federal Register ]**  , and you met the applicability criteria at the time you began construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in §63.2.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 349 of 444 ( f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. **§63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?** (a) If you ha ve a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is after **[ insert date of publication in the Federal Register**  **]** but before [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [ THE DATE 60
DAYS AFT ER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the
app licable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the emission limitations and work practice standa rds***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 350 of 444 for existing sources in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [ THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) If you have an existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (d) If you have a new area sourc e ( i.e. , an area source for which construction or reconstruction was commenced after **[ insert**  **date of publication in the Federal Register ]**  ) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must be in comp liance with this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source. (e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8630 according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in subpart A of this part . Some of the notifications must be subm itted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 351 of 444
**Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards §63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards** 

**m**

**ust I meet?** (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to this subpar t that applies to you. **§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) Emissions control system . U se an emissions capture and collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that t he capture and collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart. (2) Process changes
. Use low

- HAP raw materials or implement manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 352 of 444
emissions or emissions r eductions meet the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart. (b) To meet th e work practice standards for affected sanitaryware shuttle kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. ( c ) To meet the work practice standards for affected

sources during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart. **General Compliance Requirements §63.8570 What are my general requirements for**  **complying with this subpart?**  (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of routine control device maintenance as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. ( b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section,
you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control pra ctices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 353 of 444 the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and mainte nance records, and in spection of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8545 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) ( e.g. , continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. ( c) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits sp ecified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8575. (d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that affected source, you may bypass the source***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 354 of 444 control device and continue operating the affected source upon approval by the Administrator provided you sa tisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) You must request a routine control device maintenance exemption from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the control device a nd the time required to accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be accomplished during source shutdowns, describe how you plan to minimiz e emissions to the greatest extent possible during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation required by the Administrator. (2) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each af fected source. (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source’s title V permit.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 355 of 444 (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (5) You must minimize the time period during which the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. ( e ) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subje ct to the work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must be in compliance with that work practice standard at all times, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available. ( f ) You mus t be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this subpart. **§63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans?**  (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting authority upon request.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 356 of 444 (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section. (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be monitored. (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the parameter values will be determined and recorded. (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8555. The limits
must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests. (4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and long

- term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufa cturer’s recommendations. (5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions ( e.g. , on or downstream of the last APCD).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 357 of 444 (6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system. (7) Continuous monitoring system performance evalu ation procedures and acceptance criteria ( e.g. , calibrations). (8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in §§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d). (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting procedures consistent with the requirements in §§63.8635 and 63.8640
. (11) Procedures for responding to operating parameter deviations, including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter deviation. (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning the ope rating parameters to the allowable limits.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 358 of 444 (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began and ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed. (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance. (13) If you operate an affected source and you plan to take the source control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in §63.8570( d ), the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the affected source during periods of routine maintenance of the source control device when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period of routine maintenance on the source control device when the affected source is operating and the control device is offline. (c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating limit parameter value, you must meet the requirem ents in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 359 of 444 (2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that compliance with the emission limits can be achieve d at the revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the performance test results and the revised operating limits as part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under §63.9(h). (d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new performance test. **Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements §63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?**  For each affected sourc e that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in §63.8545 and according to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2 ). **§63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?** (a) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permi t or at least every 5 years following the initial performance test.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 360 of 444 (b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan. **§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and es tablish**  **operating limits?** (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Before conducting the performance test, you mu st install and calibrate all monitoring equipment. (c) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in Table 4 to this subpart. (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditio ns as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown . The owner or operator may not conduct perf ormance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent no rmal operation. Upon request, the owner***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 361 of 444 or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each performance tes t required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. (f) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section to determine compliance with the emission limitations. (1) To determine compliance with the production

- based particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits for ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass e missions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P ER MP = (Eq. 1)

Where:
MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 362 of 444 (2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware glaze spray booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of glaze sprayed for each test run using Equation 2:

G ER MG = (Eq. 2 )

Where:
MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of PM per megagram (ton) of glaze sprayed
ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
G = glaze application rate during each performance test run, megagrams (tons) of glaze sprayed per hour
. (3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, and floor tile press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p - dioxin (2,3,7 ,8

- TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQs) for each test run using Equation 3: 

## ( ) 

# ∑

= 

### × = n

i i i 

### TEF C TEQ 1 (Eq. 3)

Where: TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQs, nanograms per dry standard cubic meter***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 363 of 444
C i = concentration of dioxin or furan congener i, nanograms per dry stan dard cubic meter
TEF i = 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for congener i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart
.
n = number of congeners included in TEQ (4) To determine compliance with the health

- based standard for acid gas HAP for clay ceramic s manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you must: (i) C alculate the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation
4: 

###               + = HF HCl HF HCl i 

### RfC RfC E E E (Eq. 4)

Where:
E i = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E HF = emission s of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour RfC HCl = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 5:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 364 of 444 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 (Eq. 5)

Where:
E total = HCl

- equivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E i = HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility (iii) Compare this value to the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart. (g) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart. (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel

o r roller kiln, you must c alculate the maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 6: 

## ( ) ( ) ( )               + = HF HCl iHF iHCl i i 

### RfC RfC MP MP Cap E max (Eq. 6)

Where:
E max i = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour Cap i = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of fired product per hour
MP iH Cl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 365 of 444 kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF = r eference concentration for HF , 14 micrograms per cubic meter (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, sum the maximum potential HCl

- equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7: 

# ∑

= 

### = n

i i total 

### E E 1 max

max (Eq. 7 )

Where:
E max t otal = maximum potential HCl

- e quivalent emission s for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
E max i = maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emission s for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour

n = number of kilns at facility (iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , you must determine the maximum process rate for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensu re the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit . The maximum process rate would***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 366 of 444 become your operating limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.


## ( ) ( )               + =

HF HCl iHF iHCl i 

### RfC RfC MP MP eq - HCl P

max (Eq. 8 )

Where:
P max i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams (tons) per hour HCl

- eq = HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62 kilograms (140 pounds) per hour
MP iH Cl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MP iH F = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product RfC HCl = r eference concentration for HCl , 20 micrograms per cubic meter RfC HF = r eference concentration for H F , 14 micrograms per cubic meter (iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility and the total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent emissions ( E max t otal ) are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart , you must determine the combination of maximum process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl

- equivalent remains at or below the HCl

equivalent limit . The maximum process rates would become your***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 367 of 444 operating limits for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan
. (h) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the requirements in §63.8(f) and paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) A description of the alternative APCD or process changes. (ii) The type of monitorin g device or procedure that will be used. (iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored. (iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance with the operating limits.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 368 of 444 (2) Establi sh site

- specific operating limits during the performance test based on the information included in the approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. **§63.8600 What are my monitoring installa tion, operation, and**  **maintenance requirements?** (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in para graphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according to your OM&M plan. (2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. To have a valid hour of data, you m ust have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63.8570( d )). (3) Determine and record the 3

- hour block averages of all recorded readings, calculated after every 3 hours of operation***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 369 of 444 as the average of the previous 3 o perating hours. To calculate the average for each 3

- hour average period, you must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, out

- of

- control periods, or periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a routine control device maintenance exemption as specified in §63.8570( d )). (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flowrate. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 370 of 444 (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section. (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the
pressure . (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating pressure r ange, conduct calibration checks or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 371 of 444 (d) For each pH measurement device, you mu st meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points every 8 hours of process operation. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (e) For each bag leak de tection system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section. (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Gu idance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations. (2) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 372 of 444
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (3) The bag leak dete ction system sensor must provide an output of relative PM loadings. (4) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audibl e alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (9) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of th e “Fabric Filter Bag Leak***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 373 of 444 Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14)
. (10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time ma y not be adjusted except as detailed in your OM&M plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365

- day period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection which de monstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015, September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) . Record each adjustment. (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) Locat e the measurement device in a position that provides a representative feed rate measurement. (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 374 of 444 (g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5 ) and paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature being measured. (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check. (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8595(h) and 63.8(f). **§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and work p**  **ractice standards?** (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Table 6 to this subpart. (b) You must establish each site

- specific operating limit in Table 2 to this s ubpart that applies to you according to the requirements in §63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in §63. 8630(e).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 375 of 444 **Continuous Compliance Requirements §63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate**  **continuous compliance?** (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required interval s) at all times that the affected source is operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, and routine control device maintenance as specified in §63.8570( d ) when the affected source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded duri ng monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 376 of 444

averag ing period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. **§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards?**  (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart. (b) For each affec ted source that is subject to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to t his subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as required in §63.8595( h )(2) according to the methods specified in your approved alternative monitoring proce dures request, as described in §§63.8595( h )(1) and 63.8(f). (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 377 of 444 malfunction, an d routine control device maintenance. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in §63.8635. ( d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63.8570( d ) are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the approved routine control devic e maintenance exemption. (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control de vice by monitoring VE at each kiln stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. You must conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 15 minutes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 378 of 444 (2) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for any kiln stack, you may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, you must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observe d in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. (3) If VE are observed during any test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, you must report these deviations b y following the requirements in §63.8635. **Notifications, Reports, and Records §63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?**  (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the dates specified. (b) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected source before [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 379 of 444
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERAL REGISTER], you mu st submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERAL REGISTER]. (c) As specified in §63.9 (b)(2), if you start up your new or reconstructed affected source or affected source described in §63.8540(d) or §63.8540(e) on or after [ THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERAL REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become sub ject to this subpart. (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a written notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in §63.7(b) (1). (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 380 of 444 Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, b efore the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, according to §63.10(d)(2). (2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of th is section in your Notification of Compliance Status: (i) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the procedure used to establish the values. (ii) For each APCD that inclu des a fabric filter, if a bag leak detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §63.8600(e). (3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 6 to this subpart that does not include a performance test ( i.e. , compliance demonstration for the work practice standard), you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the

c ompletion of the compliance demonstration.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 381 of 444 (f) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption according to §63.8570( d ), you must submit your request for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date. (g) If you own or operat e an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665. The notification must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Company name and ad dress. (2) Identification of the affected kiln. (3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the natural gas supply interruption began. (4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use. (5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to begin and end.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 382 of 444 **§63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?** (a) You must submit each report in Table 8 to this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Administrator has ap proved a different schedule for submission of reports under §63.10(a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 8 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The first compliance report must cover the peri od beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in §63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiann ual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (3) Each subsequ ent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 383 of 444 (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the da tes in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and complete. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 384 of 444 ( 4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the control device was offline and the affected source controlled by the control device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this secti on. (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and restarted. (ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control device was offline. (iii) A statement o f whether or not the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8570( d ). If the control device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device mainten ance exemption, then you must report the information in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section. (A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period a nd during the previous semiannual compliance period.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 385 of 444 (B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled by the control device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance exempt ion during the current semiannual compliance period and during the previous semiannual compliance period. (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of affected source operating uptime during which the control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 9. 

## ( ) 100

c p c p +SU SU +DT DT RM= (Eq. 9)

Where:
RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which control device was offline for routine control device mainten ance DT p = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual compliance period
DT c = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual compliance period
SU p = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual compliance period
SU c = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual compliance period***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 386 of 444 (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit s or operating limits) or work practice standards that apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. (6) If there were no per iods during which the CMS was out

of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. (d) For each deviation from an emiss ion limitation (emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identification of the sources for wh ich there was a deviation.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 387 of 444 (2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. (3) The applicable operating limit or work practice standard f rom which you deviated and either the parameter monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you deviated from the work practice standard. (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit or operating limit) occurring at a n affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shu tdown, and routine control device maintenance. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period and identification of the sources for which there was a deviation. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except f or zero (low

- level) and high

- level checks. (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out

- of

control, including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 388 of 444 (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation o ccurred during routine control device maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption or during another period, and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable). (5) An estimate of the quantity of e ach regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit during the deviation , and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions
. (6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a deviation. (7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to st artup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total so urce operating time during that reporting period.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 389 of 444 (10) A brief description of the process units. (11) A brief description of the CMS. (12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control eq uipment since the last reporting period. (f ) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. (2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malf unction of an affected facility to minimize emissions in accordance with §6 3
. 8570 ( b ), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. (g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all d eviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 390 of 444 according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual mo nitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting the complian ce report will satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the perm itting authority. (h) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the affected kiln, you must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Company name and address. (2) Identification of the affec ted kiln. (3) Reason for using the alternative fuel. (4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 391 of 444 (5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended. (6) Amount of alternative fuel used. ( i ) Within 60 days after the date of co mpleting each performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test following the procedures specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the
EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool ( ERT ) as listed on the EPA’s ERT
W eb site ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ) at the time of the test , you must submit the resul ts of the performance
test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface ( CEDRI ). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) ( http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp ) .) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Instead of submitting performance test data in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate electronic file for mat consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site, once the XML schema is available
. If you claim that some of the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 392 of 444 performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you m ust submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA ’s ERT (or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA’s ERT W eb site once the XML schema is available) , including information claimed to be CBI , on a compact dis c, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group , MD C404

- 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file (or alternate file ) with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the
EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by t he EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT W eb site at the time of the test , you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. **§63.8640 What records must I keep?** (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 393 of 444 (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv). (2) Records of performance tests as required in §63.10(b)(2)(viii). (3) Records relating to control device maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device mainte nance exemption, if you request such an exemption under §63.8570( d ). (b) You must keep the records required in Table 7 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (1 0 ) of this section. (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. (2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 394 of 444 explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to minimize emissions in acco rdance with §63.8570(b) and the corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation , and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
R ecord and retain a list of the affecte d sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a fired

- product weigh t basis. (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test procedures. (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the
APCD. (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records documenting conformance. (7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs ( c)(7)(i ) through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln. (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in each sanitaryware shuttle k iln. If all***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 395 of 444
shuttle kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets. (ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the type of product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired. (iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of product fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. ( 8 ) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware shuttle kiln work practi ce standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart. ( 9 ) For periods of startup, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each startup period , logs of the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature at the time the first ceramics were placed in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln or dryer exhaust stopped bypassing the control device. For periods of shutdown, r ecords of the date, time, and duration of each shutdown period , logs of the kiln or dryer***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 396 of 444 exhaust temperature at the time the last ceramics were placed in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln or dryer exhaust began bypassing the control device
. ( 10 ) For each malfunction, records of the following information: (i ) Records of the occurrenc e and duration of each malfunction of operation ( i.e. , process equipment) or the air pollution control and monitoring equipment. (ii ) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with §63
. 8570 ( b ), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. **§63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?** (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). (b) As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 397 of 444 corrective action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. **Other Requirements a nd Information**  **§63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?** Table 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63 .16 apply to you. **§63.8660 Who implements and enfor ces this subpart?**  (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part , the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the
U.S. EP A and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal
agency.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 398 of 444 (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Approval of alternatives to the applica bility requirements in §§63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in §63.8545, and the non

- opacity emission limitations in §63.8555. (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in §63.90. (3) Appr oval of major changes to monitoring under §63.8(f) and as defined in §63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) and as defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA requir ed by this subpart. **§63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?** Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §63.2, and in this section as follows: Air pollution control device (APCD) means any equipment that reduces the quantity o f a pollutant that is emitted to the air.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 399 of 444 Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to , an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light

- scattering, light

transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings. Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, or sanitaryware ( e.g. , sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form the processed mate rials into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

so urce: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 400 of 444 (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted t o implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this subpart
. Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that includes contin uous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent. Emission limita tion means any emission limit or operating limit. Fabric f ilter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse. Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material applied to ceramic products before firing. Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic products, which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 401 of 444 one or more glaze spray booths) and other types of glazing operations ( e.g. , dipping, flooding, centrifugal disc glazing , curtain coating). Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze on ceramic products. Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design capacity or 12 months after the affected source begi ns firing clay ceramics, whichever is earlier. Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay ceramics, in Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours). If a kiln is modified to inc rease the capacity, the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following modifications. Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, as measured by Method 5 ( 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8), and as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium,***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 402 of 444 cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nick el, and selenium. Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control, including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right

- of

- way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Roller kiln means a contin uous kiln similar to a tunnel kiln except that the unfired ceramic product travel s through the kiln in a single layer on rollers
. In the clay ceramics source category, roller kilns are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 403 of 444
Shuttle kiln means a batch f iring kiln that is designed with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress . In the clay ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants. Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a free

flowing powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants. Startup means the setting in op eration of an affected source and starting the production process. Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics source category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 404 of 444 Work pra ctice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. **Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63** As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each emiss ion limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Emission Limits**
**For each... You must meet the following emission limits...**  1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at facility HF and HCl emissions must not exceed 62 kilograms per hour ( kg/hr ) ( 140 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl equivalent, under the health

- based standard, as determined using Equations 4 and 5. 2. Existing floor tile roller kiln. a . PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) ( 0.18 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (n g/dscm ) at 7% O 2 . 3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.099 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.7 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.3 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 4. Existing first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 405 of 444
6. Existing sanitaryware m anual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 7. Existing sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

8. Existing sanitaryware r obot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 9. Existing f loor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 11. Existing f loor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln a . PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0 .027 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

05 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg ( 0.27 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5 E

- 06 kg/Mg ( 3.1 E

06 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 0.23 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 14. New or reconstructed first

fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7
. 9 E

- 0 5 kg/Mg (1.6 E

04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 406 of 444

17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

18. New or reconstructed s anitaryware r obot glaze application PM emissions must not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 .

As stated in §63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: **Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Operating Limits**
**For each... You must...**  1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block report ing period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and b. Maintain free

- flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 407 of 444
c. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests; and d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the average scrubber chemical fe ed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl performance test. 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block peri od at or above the highest average carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests.

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test.

5. T unnel or roller kiln with no add

on control. a. Maintain no VE from the stack; and

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1); and c. Maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a FF. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the FF stack; and 7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped with Conduct daily inspection s to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system ; and Conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 408 of 444

a water curtain. Conduct annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment
. 9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles t o confirm the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 11. Floor tile press dryer. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test.
As stated in §63.8555, you must comply with each work practice standard in the following table that a pplies to you: **Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Work Practice Standards**

**For each... You must...**  **According to one of the following requirements...**  1. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shuttle kiln. a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665; and ii. Develop and us e a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the sanitaryware shu ttle kiln
. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iv. For each firing load, d ocument the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum load identified in item 1.a.iii; and v. D evelop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln tha t , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 409 of 444

air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shutt le kiln, as specified in §63.8640. 2. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or dryer during periods of startup a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin v ent ing the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 204 °C ( 400 °F ). 3. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or dryer during periods of shutdown a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ); and

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 149 °C (3 00 °F ).
As stated in §63.8595, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you: **Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Perform**  **ance Tests**

**For each... You must...**  **Using... According to the**  **following requirements...**  1. Tunnel or roller kiln. a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 410 of 444

b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3. e. Measure HF and HCl emissions. i. Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8; or You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, when no acid PM ( e.g. , HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorpora ted by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 411 of 444

ii. Method 320 of appendix A of this part
. When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part , you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part , unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source. ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1

- A8 are mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined for each target analyte. f. Measure PM emissions. i. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3; or ii. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. To determine PM, weigh the filter and report the results as PM filterable. g. Measure Hg emissions. Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
. h. Measure dioxin/furan emissions. Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. 2. Glaze spray operation a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 412 of 444

b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3. e. Measure PM emissions. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendi x A

- 3. f. Measure Hg emissions (tile glaze spray operations only). Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8. AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used a s an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
. 3. Spray dryer or floor tile press dryer a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

1. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosph ere for all affected sources.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 413 of 444

b. Determine velocities and volumetric flow rate. Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 1. c. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2, as appropriate, as an alternative to usi ng Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 2. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10

- 1981 [Part 10] (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) may be used as an alternative to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3. e. Measure dioxin/furan emissions. Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7. 4. Tunnel or roller kiln with no add

on control. a. Establish the operating limit(s) for kiln process rate if the total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart and emissions a nd production data from the HF/HCl/Cl 2 performance test
. Using the procedures in §63.8595(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate (s) for your kiln(s) that wo uld ensure total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl

- equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart
. The maximum process rate (s) would become your site

- specific process rate operating limit(s)
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 414 of 444

b. Establish the operating limit for kiln operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the kiln operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the thr ee test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is c omplying with PM and/or Hg production

based emission limits. Determine the production rate during each PM/Hg test run in order to determine compliance with PM and/or Hg production

- based emission limits. Production data collected during the PM/Hg performanc e tests ( e.g. , the number of ceramic pieces and weight per piece in the kiln during a test run divided by the amount of time to fire a piece). You must measure and record the production rate, on a fired

- product weight basis, of the affected kiln for each o f the three test runs.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 415 of 444

6. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. Establish the operating limit for the lime feeder setting. Data from the lime feeder during the HF/HCl performance test. For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free

flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton of fired product basis, for the three test runs . If the feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, determine and record the average feed rate from the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

- specific feed rate operating limit. 7. Tunnel or roller kil n equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pre ssure drop operating limit.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 416 of 444

b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid pH. Data from the pH measurement device during the HF/HCl performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pH measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid pH operating limit.
c. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid flow rate operating level . If different average wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the HF/HCl and PM tests, the highest of the average values become you r site

specific operating limit
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 417 of 444

8. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a WS that includes chemical addition to the water. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber chemical feed rate. Data from the chemical feed rate measurement device during the HF/HCl performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber chemical feed rate, determine and record the block average chemical feed rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded chemica l feed rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific chemical addition rate operating limit. 9. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system Establish the operating limit for the average carbon flow rate. Data from the carbon flow rate measurement conducted during the Hg performance test. You must measure the carbon flow rate during each test run, determine and record the block average carbon flow rate values for the three test run s, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 418 of 444

10. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. Establish the operating limit for kiln operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuou sly measure the kiln operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average o f the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 11. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber pressure drop. Data from the pressure drop measurement device during the PM performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific pressure drop operating limit. b. Establish the operating limit for the average scrubber liquid flow rate. Data from the flow rate measurement device during the PM performance test. You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid flow rate, determine and record the block average flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded flow rate measur ements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific liquid flow rate operating limit
.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 419 of 444
12. Spray dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measurement dev ice during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recorded temp erature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site

specific operating limit. 13. Floor tile press dryer. Establish the operating limit for operating temperature. Data from the temperature measure ment device during the dioxin/furan performance test. You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3

- hour block average of the recor ded temperature measurements for the three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site

specific operating limit. As stated in §63.8595(f)(3), you must demonstrate initial compliance with each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by calculating the sum of the 2,3,7,8

- TCDD TEQs using the TEFs in the following table: **Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63**  **— Toxic**  **Equivalency Factors**

**For each dioxin/furan congener... You must calculate its**  **2,3,7,8 -**  **TCDD TEQ using the**  **following TEF...** 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 1***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 420 of 444

1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 1 1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.1 1,2,3,7,8,9

- hexachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.1 1,2,3,6,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.01 Octachlor o dibenzo

- p - dioxin 0.0003 2,3,7,8

- tetrachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 2,3,4,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.3 1,2,3,7,8

- pentachlor o dibenzofuran 0.03 1,2,3,4,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 1,2,3,6,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 1,2,3,7,8,9

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 2,3,4,6,7,8

- hexachlor o dibenzofuran 0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- heptachlor o dibenzofuran 0.01 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- heptachlor o dibenzofuran 0.01 Octachlor o dibenzofuran 0.0003
As stated in §63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63**  **-- Initial Compliance with**  **Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards**

**For each... For the**  **following... You have demonstrated initial compliance**  **if...** 1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns at the facility. a. HF, HCl, and Cl 2 emissions must not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr) HCl equivalent. i. You measure H F and H Cl emissions for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by refere nce, see §63.14) ; or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14); and ii. You c alculat e the HCl

- equivalent emissions for HF for each kiln using Equation 4 to this subpart; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 421 of 444

iii. You sum the HCl

- equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using Equation 5 to this subpart; and iv. The facility total HCl

- equivalent does not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/hr). 2. Existing floor tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg ( 0.18 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg ( 0.18 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.090 kg/Mg ( 0.18 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , ove r the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during whic h Hg emissions did not exceed 6.3 E

- 05 kg/Mg ( 1.3 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 .***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 422 of 444
3. Existing wall tile roller kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0. 1 0 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0. 1 0 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/to n) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0. 1 0 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , ove r the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the op erating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 4. Existing first

- fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not ex ceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg ( 0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 423 of 444
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E

- 04 kg/Mg (2.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not ex ceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performa nce test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 424 of 444
6. Existing sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 7. Existing sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 8. Existing sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM e missions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 9. Existing f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not excee d 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 10. Existing wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 425 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to t his subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 11. Existing f loor tile press dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 12. New or reconstructed floor tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (3.9 E

- 05 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exce ed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 426 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 13. New or reconstructed wall tile roller kiln. a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.1 0 kg/Mg ( 0.2 0 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the p eriod of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.1 0 kg/Mg ( 0. 2 0 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.1 0 kg/Mg ( 0. 2 0 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1. 0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1. 0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1. 0 E

- 0 4 kg/Mg ( 2.0 E

- 0 4 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.1 7 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 14. New or reconstructed first

- fire sanitaryware tunne l kiln a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 427 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired product. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, A S T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.0 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.2 E

- 04 lb/ton) of fired product. c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 15. New or reconstructed tile glaze line with glaze spraying a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record o f the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8 or its alternative, AS T M D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) , over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 428 of 444

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 7.9 E

- 05 kg/Mg (1.6 E

- 04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 16. New or reconstructed sanitaryware m anual glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial pe rformance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 17. New or reconstructed sanitaryware s pray machine glaze application a. PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 18. New or reconstructed sanitaryware r obot glaze application a. PM emissions must not ex ceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in §63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton ) of glaze sprayed; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which PM emissions did not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed. 19. New or reconstructed f loor tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 .***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 429 of 444

20. New or reconstructed wall tile spray dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7 % O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 21. New or reconstructed f loor tile press dryer a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 ; and ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3

- hour performance test during which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O 2 . 22. Existing, new, or reconstructed sanitaryware shutt le kiln. a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel; and

ii. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the sanitaryware shuttle kiln
. You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; and iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing cycle ; and iv. D evelop maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles.
As stated in §63.8620, you must demon strate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to the following table:***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 430 of 444 **Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards** 

**For each...**  **For the following...**  **You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...**  1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/FF. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to this subpart for kil ns equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF. i. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the f abric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to init iate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and ii. Verifying that lime is free

flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing co rrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder setting once each shift of operation to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established during the HF/HCl performance test. 2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with a a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubb er pressure drop***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 431 of 444

WS. each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with WS. data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH es tablished during the HF/HCl performance test; and iii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests; and iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average scru bber chemical feed rate established during the HF/HCl performance test. 3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped with an ACI system. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped w ith ACI system. Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at or above the highe st average carbon flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests. 4. Tunnel or roller kiln Each emission limit in Table 1 to this Collecting the kiln operating temperature data according to***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 432 of 444
intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. subpart and each operating limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns intending to comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system. §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. 5. Tunnel or roller kil n with no add

- on control a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to this subpart for tunnel or roller kilns with no add

- on control. i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specifie d in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the stack.

ii. I f your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl

equivalent was not at or below the health

- based standard in Table 1 to this subpart , collecting the kiln process rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln process rate for each 3

- hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to §63.8595(g)(1). iii. Collecting the kiln operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the kiln operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test. 6. Glaze spray operation equipped with a FF. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating li mit in Item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart for glaze spray If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 433 of 444
operations equipped with a FF. that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6

- month block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the f abric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is count ed as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the FF stack at the frequency specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 7; and maintaining no VE from the FF stack. 7. Glaze spray operation equipped with a WS. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 7 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with WS. i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the PM performance test; and i i. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3

- hour block period at o r above the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test. 8. Glaze spray operation equipped with a water curtain. a. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 8 of Table 2 to this subpa rt for kilns equipped with a water curtain. Conducting daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system; and

Conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 434 of 444
equipment for leaks; and Conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. 9. Glaze spray operation equipped with baffles. Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 9 of Table 2 to this subpart for kilns equipped with baffles. Conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.

10. Spray dryer Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 10 of Table 2 to this subpart for spray dryers. Collecting the operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3

- hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. 11. Floor tile press dryer Each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart and each operating limit in It em 11 of Table 2 to this subpart for floor tile press dryers. Collecting the operating temperature data according to §63.8600(a); reducing the operating temperature data to 3

- hour block averages according to §63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating t emperature for each 3

- hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test
. 1 2 . Sanitaryware shuttle kiln a. Minimize HAP emissions. i. Maintaining records documenting your use of natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; and ii. If you intend to use an alternative fuel, submitting a notification of alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in §63.8665; and iii. Submitting a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 435 of 444
use of the alternative fuel, as specified in §63.8635(g ); and iv. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the shuttle kiln ; and v. For each firing load, d ocument ing the total tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum lo ad identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 to this subpart; and vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that , at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air

- to

- fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and vii. Developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, as specified in §63.8640.
As stated in §63.8635, you must submit each report that applies to you according to the following table: **Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Requirements for Reports**

**You must submit...**  **The report must contain... You must submit**  **the report...** 1. A compliance report. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or work practice standards that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control during the reporting period. Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8635(b).***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 436 of 444
b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in §63.8635(d) or (e). If there were periods during which the CMS was out

- of

- control, as specified in your OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in §63.8635(e). Semiannually according to the requirements in §63.8635(b).

2. A report of alternative fuel use. The information in §63.8635(g). If you are subject to the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart, and you use an alternative fuel to fire an affected kiln, by letter within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel.
As stated in §63.8655, you must comply with the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you according to the following table: **Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 --**  **Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK** 

**Citation Subject**  **Brief Description Applies to**  **Subpart KKKKK ?**  §63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability determination; appl icability after standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications. Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 standards. Yes.
§63.3 Units and Abbreviations. Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 437 of 444

§63.4 Prohibited Activities. Compliance date; circumvention; severability. Yes.

§63.5 Construction/ Reconstruction. Applicability; applications; approvals. Yes.
§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become major. Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)

- (4) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for section 112(f). Yes.

§6 3.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved]. §63.6(b)(7) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were area sources. Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)

- (2) Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)

- (4) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(c)(5) Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 438 of 444
§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.
§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & Maintenance. General Duty to minimize emissions. No. See §63.8570(b) for general duty requirement. §63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & Maintenance. Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP. No. §63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation & Maintenance. Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable independent of emissions limitations. Yes.

§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No. §63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP. No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance Except During SSM. You must comply with emission standards at all times except during SSM. No.

§63.6(f)(2)

- (3) Methods for Determining Compliance. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative Standard. Procedures for getting an alternative standard. Yes.
§63.6(h) Opacity/VE Standards. Requirements for opacity and VE standards. No, not applicable. §63.6(i) Compliance Extension. Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance exte nsion. Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential Compliance Exemption. President may exempt source category. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 439 of 444

§63.7(a)(1)

- (2) Performance Test Dates. Dates for conducting initial performance testing and other compliance demonstrations for emission limits and work practice standards ; must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA section 114 at any time. Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of Delay in Performance Testing Due To Force Majeure. Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure. Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of Performance Test. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of Rescheduling. Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Yes.

§63.7(c) Quality Assurance (QA)/ Test Plan. Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external Q A procedures for testing. Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing Facilities. Requirements for testing facilities. Yes.
§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions. No, §63.8595 specifies requirements.
Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 440 of 444

§63.7(e)(2)

- (3) Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative; must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three runs; conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under Section 114 Administrator' s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act. Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative Test Method. Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance Test Data Analysis. Must include raw data in performance test report; must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the notification of compliance status. Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of Tests. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test. Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability of Monitoring Requirements. Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart. Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance Specifications. Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 apply. Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No. §63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with Flares. Requirements for flares in §63.11 apply. No, not applicable. §63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)

- (3) Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. Specific requirements for installing and reporting on monitoring systems. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 441 of 444

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Maintenance consistent with good air pollution control practices. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and Predictable SSM. Re porting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP. No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in SSMP. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSMP. Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. No.

§63.8(c)(2)

- (3) Monitoring System Installation. Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS Requirements. Requi rements for CMS. No, §63.8600 specifies requirements
. §63.8(c)(5) Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Minimum Procedures. COMS minimum procedures. No, not applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS Requirements. Zero and high level calibration check requirements. Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)

- (8) CMS Requirements. Out

- of

- control periods. Yes. §63.8(d) CMS Quality Control. Requirements for CMS quality control. Yes.
§63.8(e) CMS Performance Evaluation. Requirements for CMS performance evaluation. Yes.
§63.8(f)(1)

- (5) Alternative Monitoring Method. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring. Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy test for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). No, not applicable.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 442 of 444
§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements. No, not applicable. §63.9(a) Notification Requirements. Applicability; State delegation. Yes.
§63.9(b) Initial Notifications. Requirements for initial notifications. Yes.
§63.9(c) Request for Compliance Extension. Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/LAER. Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of Performance Test. Notify Administrator 60 days prior. Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test. Notif y Administrator 30 days prior. No, not applicable.
§63.9(g)(1) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of performance evaluation. Yes.

§63.9(g)(2)

- (3) Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded. No, not applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of Compliance Status. Contents; submittal requirements. Yes.

§63.9(i) Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines. Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in Previous Information. Must submit within 15 days after the change. Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Applicability; general information. Yes.
§63.10(b)(1) General Recordkeeping Requirements. General requirements. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 443 of 444
§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related to SSM. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard. No. See §63.86 40(c)(2) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. §63 .10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related to SSM. Maintenance records. Yes. §63.10(b)(2)(iv)

- (v) Records Related to SSM. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM. No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)

- (xii) and (xiv) CMS Records. Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or out

- of

control. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(xiii) Records. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test. No, not applicable.
§63.10(b)(3) Records. Applicability Determinations. Yes.
§63.10(c)(1)

- (15) Records. Additional records for CMS. No, §§63.8575 and 63.8640 specify requirements. §63.10(d)(1) and (2) General Reporting Requirements. Requirements for reporting; performance test results reporting. Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review

- Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 444 of 444
§63.10(d)(3) Reporting Opacity or VE Observations. Requirements for reporting opacity and VE. No, not applicable.
§63.10(d)(4) Progress Reports. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Yes.

§63.10(d)(5) SSM Reports. Contents and submission. No. See §63.8635(f) for malfunction reporting requirements. §63.10(e)(1)

- (3) Additional CMS Reports. Requirements for CMS reporting. No, §§63.8575 and 63.8635 specify requirements. §63.10(e)(4) Reporting COMS data. Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data. No, not applicable.
§63.10(f) Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting. Procedures for Administrator to waive. Yes.

§63.11 Flares. Requirement for flares. No, not applicable. §63.12 Delegation. State authority to enforce standards. Yes.
§63.13 Addresses. Addresses for reports, notifications, requests. Yes.
§63.14 Incorporation by Reference. Materials incorporated by reference. Yes.
§63.15 Availability of Information. Information availability; confidential information. Yes.

§63.16 Performance Track Provisions. Requ i rem e nts for Performance Track member facilities. Yes.

# Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP

U

. S

. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Air Economics Group (MD

- C339

- 01) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

July 2014 Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291CONTACT INFORMATION This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this docum ent should be addressed to Tom Walton , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (email: walton.tom@epa.gov ).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Personnel from RTI International and K apur Energy Environmental Economics, LLC contributed significant data, analysis, and writing to this document under contract number EP

- W

11

- 029. Formatted: Body Text1,bt,body tx,indent,flush,body text,memo body text,body 4h,body 4equationhiii CONTENTS
Section Page Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. ES

- 1
Section 1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1

- 1 1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 1 1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 2 1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

................................ .. 1

- 2 1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure

................. 1

- 2 1.3 Organization o f the Report

................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 3 Section 2 Profile of the Affected Industry

................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 1 2.1 Overview of Current Conditions

................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 1 2.2 Supply

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 2 2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide?

.............................. 2

- 2 2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply?

................................ ................. 2

- 3 2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity Supplied?

................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 3 2.3 Demand

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 4 2.3.1 Who Uses Brick?

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 5 2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand?

................................ ......... 2

- 5 2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded?

................................ ................................ ............... 2

- 6 2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry

................................ ....................... 2

- 6 2.4.1 Market Defin ition

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 6 2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior

................................ ................................ .............. 2

- 7 2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies

................................ 2

- 8 2.5 Market Data and Trends

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 11 2.5.1 Market Prices

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

- 20iv 2.6 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 21 Section 3 Engineering Cost Analysis

................................ ................................ ..................... 3

- 1 3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach

................................ ........ 3

- 1 3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device

................................ ................................ . 3

- 4 3.3 Summary of Results

................................ ................................ ............................. 3

- 6
Section 4 Human Health Benefits of Emissions Reductions

................................ ................. 4

- 1 4.1 PM 2.5 - Related Human Health Co

- Benefits

................................ .......................... 4

- 1 4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment

................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 2 4.1.2 Economic Valuation

................................ ................................ ................. 4

- 5 4.1.3 Benefit

- per - ton Estimates

................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 7 4.1.4 PM 2.5 Co

- Benefits Results

................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 8 4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 Co

Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4

- 12 4.2 Unquantified Benefits

................................ ................................ ........................ 4

- 16 4.2.1 HAP Benefits

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 17 4.2.2 Additional SO 2 Health Co

- Benefits

................................ ....................... 4

- 28 4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co

- Benefits

................................ ........................ 4

- 29 4.3 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 29 Section 5 Economic Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 1 5.1 Market Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

- 1 5.1.1 Market

- Level Results

................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 2 5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 2 5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule

................................ ......................... 5

- 2 5.2.1 Theory

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 5 5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer

- Reviewed Literature

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

- 10 5.2.3 Regulated Sector

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 11 5.2. 4 Environmental Protection Sector

................................ ........................... 5

- 12 5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts

................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 12 5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects

................................ ............. 5

- 13 5.2.7 Informat ion Specific to this Regulation

................................ ................. 5

- 13v 5.2.8 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 14 5.3 Impacts on Small Entities

................................ ................................ .................. 5

- 14 5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis

................................ ........... 5

- 15 5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

................................ ................... 5

- 17 5.4 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 20 Section 6 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

................................ ................................ 6

- 1 6.1 Synopsis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6

- 1 6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

............................. 6

- 1 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

................................ ................................ .................... 6

- 2 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act

................................ ................................ ................... 6

- 3 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

................................ ......................... 6

- 5 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

................................ ................................ .... 6

- 5 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation an d Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6

- 5 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risk s and Safety Risks

................................ ................................ ............. 6

- 6 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

................................ .... 6

- 6 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

....................... 6

- 6 6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

................................ ....... 6

- 7 Section 7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs

................................ ................................ ......... 7

- 1 7.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7

- 1 7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards

................................ ............................... 7

- 1 7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards

................................ ............................... 7

- 1vi Appendixes A Economic Model

................................ ................................ ................................ . A

- 1vii LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page 2

- 1 Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327)

........................ 2

- 2 2

- 2 Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products

................................ ......... 2

- 21
4

- 1 Total Monetized PM 2.5 Co

- Benefits of Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4

- 10 4

- 2 Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 Exposure in the Baseline

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4

- 16 4

- 3 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 Exposure in the Baseline

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

- 17 4

- 4 Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 4

- 19 4

- 5 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

................................ ........................... 4

- 20viii LIST OF TABLES
Number Page 2

- 1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 7 2

- 2. Market Share Statistics

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 8 2

- 3. Production Statistics by Census Region

................................ ................................ ....... 2

- 9 2

- 4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

................................ .................... 2

- 10 2

- 5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993

– 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 12 2

- 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt G lazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 14 2

- 7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993

– 2010

.... 2

- 17 2

- 8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010

......... 2

- 20 2

- 9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 20
3

- 1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

................................ ............ 3

- 3 3

- 2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 milli on USD)

................................ ........ 3

- 4 3

- 3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

.............. 3

- 5 3

- 4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD)

.................... 3

- 7
4

- 1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5

................................ ................................ .... 4

- 3 4

- 2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2

- Related Health Co

Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a

.............. 4

- 9 4

- 3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2

- Related Co

- Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a

..................... 4

- 9 4

- 4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a

................................ ...... 4

- 11 4

- 5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa

................................ ............. 4

- 15
5

- 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP

................................ ............. 5

- 3 5

- 2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements

................................ ................................ . 5

- 14 5

- 3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

......... 5

- 16
7

- 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 2011$)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7

- 2ixES

- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Background T he U.S. Environment Protection Agency ( EPA ) is proposing that all major sources in Brick and S tructural C la y P roducts Manufacturing category meet health

- based standards for acid gas hazardous air pollutants; maximum achievable control technology standards for mercury,
non - mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (or particulate matter surrogate), and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only); and work practice standards, where applicable. The proposed rules would protect air quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of the hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As part of the regulatory process, EPA is require d to perform economic analysis and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) discusses the benefits and costs of the proposed rule

. ES.2 Results For the proposed rule, the key results of the RIA follow:

■ Engineering Cost Analysis : EPA estimates the total annuali zed costs (2011$) for two compliance options:

– Proposed Standards : $21 Million

– Alternate Standards : $ 31 million

■ Benefits Analysis : The EPA monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5

.

– Proposed Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed standards to be $52 million to $120 million. Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $ 47 million to $110 million

.

– A lternate Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the alternate standards to be $78 million to $180 million . Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160 million. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year for the alternate standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule would reduce several non - mercury HAP m etals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.ES

- 2 ■ Market Analysis and Closure Estimates : Market

- level impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. T he average national price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4%, or $3.29 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1.1%, or 38 million bricks per year. These values are lower than the alternate considered: the average national pr ice increase for the alternate standards is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alte rnate standards EPA estimated that two to six brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

■ Social Cost Analysis : Under the proposed standards , the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on $11.4 million (2011$) of the rule ’ s costs to U.S. household s in the form of higher prices. Existing U.S. industries ’ surplus falls by $9.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $20.6 million. Under the alternate standards , total U.S. economic surplus loss is about $10 million higher ($30.5 million).

■ Comparison of Benefits and Costs : The estimated monetized human health benefits outweigh the social costs
.

– Proposed Standards: The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate.

– Alternate Standards: The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount rate.

■ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis : E PA was particularly concerned about the proposed rule ’ s potential impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 employees and thus meet the Small Business Administration ’ s (SBA ’ s) criterion for a small busines s in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by computing the ratio of control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to c ertify that the rule will not have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). ES.3 Organizatio n of this Report The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Section 1 provides an introduction, Section 2 presents the industry profile, Section 3 describes engineering cost analysis, Section 4 presents the benefits an alysis, Section 5 presents market, employment impact, social cost, and small business impact analyses, Section 6 address statutory and Executive Order requirements, and Section 7 provides a summary of benefits and c ost s.1

- 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Bricks and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) industry. This rulemaking will establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants (HF, HC l and metals) emitted from affected BSCP kilns. The BSCP industry primarily includes facilities that manufacture brick, clay, pipe, roof tile, extruded floor and wall tile, and other extruded dimensional clay products from clay, shale, or a combination of the two. The manufacturing of brick and structural clay products involves mining, raw material processing (crushing, grinding, and screening), mixing, forming, cutting or sh aping, drying, and firing. Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to set emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously determined that the clay products manufacturing industry may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CA A), as amended in 1990. As a consequence, clay products manufacturing was included in the initial list of HAP

- emitting categories published July 16, 1992, in the Federal Register and included in the draft schedule for the promulgation of emissions standard s published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1992. While conducting work on the clay products manufacturing source category under Task Order (TO) Nos. 10 and 30 of EPA Contract No. 68

- D6

- 0012, it was determined that separate national emissions stan dards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) should be developed for brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing. The NESHAP for BSCP manufacturing was promulgated on February 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register (See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003) )

. As a result of judicial review, the standards were subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit due to issues associated with the methodology used to determine t he minimum regulatory “ floors ” for new and existing units . (See Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, EPA is proposing new standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manuf acturing. . This Regulatory Impact Analysis examines the estimated costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule.1

- 2 1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action 1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on BSCP facilities and considering Sierra Club v EPA decision, that emissions standards are needed for several pollutants emitted by BSCP facilities. To ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, EPA must ensure that emissions of HAP an d other pollutants from BSCP are limited. EPA is proposing MACT technology

- based standards for mercury and non

- mercury metal HAP (or PM surrogate), and is proposing health

- based standards for acid

- gas HAP (HF, HCl, and Cl 2 ). The proposed rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to formation of ambient PM 2.5 . Therefore

, reducing these emissions would also reduce human exposure to ambient PM 2.5 and the incidence of PM 2.5 - related health effects. Thus, the pr oposed rule is expected to reduce human morbidity and premature mortality due to exposure to PM 2.5 , in addition to providing human health and ecosystem benefits due to reduced emissions of HAP, and improved visibility due to reduced PM levels. 1.2.2 Need for Reg ulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure In general, regulatory intervention is required only when markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. For markets to allocate resources efficiently, both buyers and sellers must have access to full informa tion about the transaction; there must be many buyers and sellers so that neither buyers nor sellers have power to control prices; and the market must impose all the social costs of the transaction on the buyers and sellers in the market. In some situation s, however, these conditions do not occur, and markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. One such market failure occurs in cases where a production or consumption activity imposes an external cost on members of society who are neither buyers nor sell ers in the market for the good or service produced. In cases of external costs, or “ externalities, ” some costs are imposed on members of society who are not part of the market. Because the market is not affected by these costs, it fails to account for thes e costs and thus does not allocate resources efficiently, and government must intervene to make the outcome more efficient. Environmental pollution that results from a production process is an example of an external cost borne by members of society who are neither producers nor consumers of the good whose production is generating the pollution. In the case of bricks and structural clay products , manufacturing processes result in air emissions that impose external costs on individuals located near BSCP facil ities who are exposed to the HAP emitted by the processes. Because these costs are borne by exposed individuals rather than by the BSCP manufacturers, they are not considered by manufacturers in their production1

- 3 decisions. As a result, BSCP manufacturers p roduce more, and emit more pollutants, than they would if they bore the costs of the air pollution they generate. Because the market does not provide a signal that properly limits the quantity of air pollutants emitted by BSCP manufacturers, a market failu re exists that requires EPA to promulgate air pollution standards to limit their emissions. 1.3 Organization of the Report The remainder of this economic analysis is organized as follows:

■ Section 2 presents a profile of the bricks and structural clay products industry.

■ Section 3 describes the proposed rule and the estimated costs of complying with it.

■ Section 4 presents a qualitative discussion of the benefits of the proposed rule.

■ Section 5 describes the estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule.

■ Section 6 describes analyses EPA conducted to assess requirements of statutes and Executive Orders.

■ Section 7 presents EPA ’ s provides a summary of benefits and c ost s.2

- 1 SECTION 2 PROFILE OF THE AFFEC TED INDUSTRY Residential and commercial construction activities rely on bricks and structural clay materials. Most bricks are used as primary and secondary exterior wall materials, while other structural clay products are used in plumbing systems and roofing applicatio ns. Because over 80% of brick sales are associated with residential construction (Brick Industry Association, 2013a ), trends in the industry are influenced by trends in residential construction markets. 2.1 Overview of Current Conditions To provide a general overview of current conditions in the affected industry, we used the U.S. government ’ s official measures reported in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), County Business Patterns, and Current Industrial Reports

. Because the latest year of data (2011) differs from historical industry trends, it is unclear whether the industry without the proposed rule would be similar to the industry today. As a result, the profile provides information on a range of factors that may influence how the brick

- related markets may evolve. Federal statistical agencies classify business establishments in this industry using two North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes: 1

■ 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing

■ 327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing In 2011, the value of products shipped in the two industries was approximately $1.1 billion. Nearly all of the value was centered in NAICS 327121. The ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a,b ). During 2011, approximately 3 to 4 billion Standard Brick Equivalents (S.B.E.) 2 were produced by the industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 ). Federal Reserve data and industry surveys suggest the capacity utilization r ate for the brick industry is below 50% ( Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , 2013 ; Brick Industry Association, 2013b ) (see Figure 2

- 1). The current observed conditions ar e influenced by the recent steep declines in the residential

1 In 2012, these industries were classified under NAICS 32710 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing

. See http://www.census.gov/cgi

- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=327120&search=2012

. 2 This is a common unit that accounts for various sizes of brick products. It measures 3

- 5/8 ′′ x 2

- 1/4 ′′” x 7

- 5/8 ′′.2

- 2 Figure 2 - 1. Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327) Source: Federal Reserve Board, 2013 construction market. For example, 2011 new privately owned housing starts (608,800) units are well below levels observed in 2000 (1.6 million) and 1990 (1.2 million) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013c ). Since 2010, new residential housing starts have begun to grow agai n, but levels are still much lower than the previous two decades. New privately owned housing starts in July 2013 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 852,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013d ). 2.2 Supply To better understan d the markets for affected products, we consider ed the group of sellers that provide goods to the market and common factors that influence supply (e.g., input prices) and quantity of goods supplied (e.g., output prices). 2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Ind ustry Provide? The U.S. Current Industrial Report provides descriptions of the types of clay construction goods supplied to U.S. and international markets. They include

■ brick (building or common and face);

■ structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, i ncluding glazed and unglazed;

■ vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings; and2

- 3 ■ structural clay tile (except facing)

. Bricks are the primary good produced in terms of value and physical quantities and include face brick, paving brick, building brick, and thin br ick. Face brick accounts for over 90% of brick shipments. 2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply ? The manufacturing process for brick and structural clay goods includes raw material processing (mining, grinding, screening, and blending) followed by forming, cutting, or shaping; drying; firing; cooling; and storage (U.S. EPA, 1997 ). Census data for NAICS 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing suggest that 70% of the product ’ s value is associated with value

- added activities ( i.e., labo r and capital earnings ). During the last 5 years, labor costs have remained flat in the nonmetallic mineral products sector . The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that average annual hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) of all employees was about $20 per hour (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a,b ). The value of intermediate goods used in these processes (i.e., raw materials like clay and shale) make up the remaining 30% of the industry ’ s total product value (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a ). Intermediate production costs can be influenced by changes in raw clay material prices, but the prices of these materials have not fluctuated recently. Since 2008 , common clay prices (primarily used in brick) have remained steady at $12 per ton. The U .S. Geological Survey (U SGS ) notes that brick companies often consider sources of raw materials when considering purchasing other companies. For example, the Belden Br ick Co. purchase of Lawrenceville Brick Inc. included Lawrenceville Brick ’ s clay reserves (USGS, 201 1 ). 2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity Supplied? All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks supplied responds to changes in the brick price. 3 If manufacturers have a significant amount of flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

3 The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity suppli ed divided by the percentage change in price.2

- 4 A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford ( 2002) develop ed an equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period 4 and the other input that varies with production

. Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × share ue factor val fixed share ue factor val fixed 1

−

. To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 5 0% to approximately match the non - labor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases
w here we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity is 1 (a Cobb

- Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shar es . If we assume the elasticity of substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is Supply Elasticity = 1 × 

### 5

. 0 5

. 0 1

− = 1

. Using these values for the fixed factor ’ s value share and elasticity of substitution, the supply elasticity is approximately one . This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick manufacturers would plan to sell 1 % more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value m ay underestimate how responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 2.3 Demand Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) are primarily used in residential and commercial construction applications and are influenced by overall macroeconomic trends and conditions in the residential housing industry. Facing bricks are used in overall building structures (e.g., exterior walls), while clay pipe; structural clay tile; and drain, sewer, and roof tiles are used in elements of the building structure such as plumbing systems, fireplaces, and

4 The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include materials or labor.2

- 5 roofs. Because the vast majority of affected products are brick products and available data for other structural clay products are more limited, we focus on brick demand characteristics. 2.3.1 Who Uses Brick ? According to the Brick Industry Association, the vast majority of affected brick products
are sold for residential end uses and nonresidential build ing uses (Brick Industry Association, 2013b ). The pattern of shipments varies by brick type: approximately half of the industry shipments go to dealers or distributors who sell the products to final consumers and t he other half is sold directly to end users like construction companies (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). Over half of the shipments flow to two census regions (South Atlantic and West South Central), and Texas is the largest consumer of face brick and paver shipments (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). 2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand ? BSCP have a variety of characteristics desirable in building materials. According to the Brick Industry Association , bri ck ’ s desirable attributes include its durability, flexibility, resistance to fire, weather, and pests; and little required maintenance. (Brick Industry Association, 2013a) A recent National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) survey of buyers of new homes f ound that “ To get brick, respondents reported they would add $7,500 in additional costs ” (NAHB, 2013 ). 2.3.2.1 Price of Related Goods In exterior wall applications, vinyl siding, stone, stucco, wood, and fiber cement are substitute building mate rials. Historically, brick has maintained a 25% market share in the exterior wall application market (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). A recent NAHB survey found that “ On a national level, respondents ranked brick highest at 34 percent, vinyl siding at 21 percent, stone at 16 percent, stucco at 12 percent, wood at 7 percent and fiber cement at 5 percent ” (NAHB, 2013 ). 2.3.2.2 Income Homeowners purchasing more expensive homes are more likely to choose brick exteriors. A recent NAHB survey found that “ Ranked by price point [sale price of the home] , brick topped other home exteriors in the $150,000

– $499,000 range, while vinyl was preferred in the $150,000 or less range; brick ranked second to stone in the $500,000+ range with stucco following in t hird place ” (NAHB, 2013 ). This suggests demand for brick exterior is likely influence d by income levels.2

- 6 2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded? All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer BSCP when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response. 5 Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers can easily switch from one product to another beca use there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus years). Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities of demand for BSCP . However, economy

- wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8 , a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decli ne in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008 ). Because the market definition for the product is broad, the price response for BSCP is likely more elastic than this value

. 2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry 2.4.1 Market Definition Market definition boundaries are commonly defined in two dimensions: product substitution and geography. Based on product substitution characteristics and available data, we rely on the Census definitions to defin e three groups of markets in which buyers are more likely to view products as substitutes:

■ Brick

– Brick (building or common and face)

■ Other Structural Clay Products

– Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed

– Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings

■ Other Clay Structural, Floor, and Wall Tile

– Structural clay tile (except facing) Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high, relative to value. For this reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of

5 The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divid ed by the percentage change in price.2

- 7 nonmetallic mineral product s were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 ). 6 As shown in Table 2

- 1, approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS 327 is less than 50 miles. A comparison o f Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the average price of brick products shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for b rick. Table 2 - 1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 ( N onmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturin g)

Distance Shipped 2007 Value (million $) 2007 Tons (thousands) Share of Total Tons Total 124,713 1,060,926

---- Less than 50 miles 53,721 796,412 75.1% 50

– 99 miles 12,351 82,342 7.8% 100

– 249 miles 21,760 113,384 10.7% 250

– 499 miles 15,117 39,645 3.7% 500

– 749 miles 8,495 16,040 1.5% 750

– 999 miles 4,872 6,039 0.6% 1,000

– 1,499 miles 3,790 4,722 0.4% 1,500

– 2,000 miles 2,364 1,344 0.1% More than 2,000 miles 2,246 998 0.1% Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Table 15. 2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior Economists have developed a system for grouping markets that helps describe the pricing behavior of firm s . At one end of the spectrum, firms have little control over pricing for their products. Put another way, firms are price takers, and price is determined by supply and demand conditions. This basic model is more likely to hold when the industry has a large number of sellers, goods are identical, and barriers for entry and exit (laws, high capital requirements, or patents) are low. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a single firm that searches for the price

- output combination that maximizes its profit. This basic model is more likely to hold when there are significant barriers to entry (industries with economies of scale or ownership of a patent).

6 The data include other product s such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products. Formatted Table2

- 8 When markets have a small number of firms selling identical products, firms may not necessarily be p rice takers; instead, they may be able to determine their price while considering how competitors may respond to their own decisions . To assess the extent to which affected markets may be concentrated among a small number of sellers, we compiled and estimated national and regional market share statistics using historical kiln survey data. Across the United States, a large number of companies (50 companies) own and operate over 200 kilns. The largest U.S. market share for a U.S. company is low (about 1 6%). This is consistent with the latest 5

- year Census statistics describing U.S. concentration at the 6

- digit NAICS code level, which found that both affected industries are well below levels that government agencies consider moderately concentrated (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 e ). As Table 2

- 2 indicates, l ooking within regions, the New England region has only two operating companies, while the South Atlantic region has 17. In several Census regions, a single parent company acc ounts for a majority of estimated regional production. To the extent that brick product markets are defined at the regional level versus national level , the price

- taking model of firm decisions may not describe business decisions as well as other economic models of pricing behavior. Table 2 - 2. Market Share Statistics

Census Region Number of Companies Maximum Company Share of Region

Production East North Central 12 38% East South Central 9 49% Mid

- Atlantic 5 66% Mountain 6 48% New England 2 NA Pacific 4 40% South Atlantic 17 26% West North Central 9 31% West South Central 5 52% Source: U.S. EPA calculations. 2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies Based on historical kiln inventory survey data, over 13 million tons of BSCP are produced by the industry , which includes over 200 major and area source kilns. EPA has Formatted Table2

- 9 identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. The companies own 86 faciliti es and operate 172 kilns (see Table 2

- 3) . The South Atlantic region accounts for a significant share of existing production capacity; 25 facilities and 57 kilns are operated in this region. Table 2 - 3. Production Statistics by Census Region

Census Region T otal S.B.E Shipped in 2010 (1000s) Number of Affected Kilns Number of Affected Facilities Estimated Affected Production Share

within Region East North Central 285,508 29 10 81% East South Central 388,685 28 14 100% Mid

- Atlantic 213,583 8 5 69% Mountain 114,154 4 3 5 0 % New England 37,034 0 0 0% Pacific 74,563 6 4 85% South Atlantic 1,307,601 57 25 92% West North Central 183,247 15 11 100% West South Central 891,232 25 14 100% United States 3, 495,607 172 8 6 90% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations. 2.4.3.1 Small Businesses The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires federal departments and agencies to evaluate if and/or how their regulations affect small business entities. Specifically, the Agency must determine if a regulation is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizat ions, and small governmental jurisdictions. The business is defined as the owner company, rather than the facility; the size of the owner company determines the resources it has available to comply with the rule. Affected parent companies fall under the Cl ay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry , and the Small Business Administration (SBA) (2013 ) defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small bus inesses (see Table 2

- 4). Formatted Table2

- 10 Table 2 - 4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

Company ICR NAICS Affected Facilities Affected Kilns Sales (million $) Employment Small Acme Brick Company 327121 11 19 260.1 2,602 No American Eagle Brick Co. 327121 1 1 NA NA Yes Belden Brick Company 327121 2 11 87.5 751 No Boral Bricks Inc. 327121 11 20 3,922.0 14,740 No Certainteed Corporation 327123 1 1 1,330.8 Over 10,000 No Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. 327121 1 4 43.5 175 Yes Columbus Brick Co. 327121 1 3 4.9 50 Yes Commercial Brick Corp. 327121 1 3 17.5 175 Yes Continental Brick Co. 327121 1 2 15.0 75 Yes Cunningham Brick Company, Inc. 327121 2 2 18.5 134 Yes Elgin

- Butler Brick Co. 327122 1 2 2.7 30 Yes Endicott Clay Products Co. 327122 1 3 23.4 180 Yes General Finance, Inc. 327121 1 1 212.2 229 Yes General Shale Brick, Inc. 327121 6 16 285.4 1,900 No Glen Gery 327121 6 10 83.3 N/A No Hanson Brick East, LLC 327121 9 15 51.2 1,021 No Hebron Brick Company 327121 1 1 NA 55 Yes Henry Brick Company, Inc. 327121 1 2 5.3 60 Yes International Chimney Corp. 327121 1 1 27.9 250 Yes Ironrock Capital (formerly Metropolitan Ceramics, Inc.) 327122 1 4 NA 175 Yes Kansas Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 3.5 35 Yes Kasten Clay Products Co. 327121 1 1 3.8 42 Yes L.P. McNear Brick Co, Inc. 327121 1 1 11.0 75 Yes Lee Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 4 35.0 175 Yes Logan Clay Products 327123 0 0 13.5 175 Yes Marion Ceramics, Inc. 327123 1 1 5.3 75 Yes McAvoy Brick Co. 327121 1 1 1.8 7 Yes Mohawk Industries 327122 2 5 5,788.0 NA No Mutual Materials Co. 327121 & 327123 2 2 7.5 35 Yes Old Virginia Brick Co. 327121 2 3 22.1 175 Yes (continued) Formatted Table2

- 11 Table 2 - 4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities (continued)

Company ICR NAICS Affected Facilities Affected Kilns Sales (Million $) Employment Small Pacific Clay Products 327121 1 3 27.2 175 Yes Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc. 327121 1 6 30.2 35 Yes Ragland Clay Products, LLC 327121 1 1 1.9 35 Yes Richards Brick Co. 327121 1 2 18.1 75 Yes Sioux City Brick and Tile Co. 327121 2 3 7.5 35 Yes Statesville Brick Co. 327121 1 2 35.0 175 Yes Summit Pressed Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 8.5 75 Yes Summitville Tiles, Inc. 327122 1 4 300.0 175 Yes Superior Clay Corp. 327121 0 0 7.4 75 Yes The Stiles & Hart Brick Company 327121 0 0 4.8 44 Yes Triangle Brick 327121 2 5 29.8 203 Yes Watsontown Brick Co. 327121 1 2 4.1 35 Yes Whitacre Greer 327121 1 2 8.7 75 Yes Yankee Hill Brick and Tile 327121 1 1 NA 75 Yes NA = No annual sales data Sources: Data on total number of ultimate parent company employees and annual sales were gathered from Hoover ’ s, Manta, and company Web sites. 2.5 Market Data and Trends This section presents historical market data for select bricks and structural clay products

. Historical market data include U.S. volumes for manufacturers ’ shipments, 7 foreign trade, and apparent consumption. Data were obtained from various years of Current Industrial Reports published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 2

- 5 provides data for common, building, and face bricks, while Table 2

- 6 presents data for structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and glazed, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe. Table 2

- 7 focuses on structural clay tile (except facing), and Table 2

- 8 is for clay floor and wall tile.

7 The source reports lis t both shipment and production quantities. Here we have chosen shipment quantities over production quantities, even though these do not differ by much in each year or show different trends over time. The reason to choose shipment numbers over production nu mbers is that shipment quantity is the number that is relevant for final consumption. In fact, when the data source reports calculate “apparent consumption,” they use shipment numbers, not production numbers. Formatted Table2

- 12 Table 2 - 5. Historical Data for Brick ( Building or Common and Face ) (10 3 bricks a ): 1993

– 2010

Year Shipment of Bricks b Exports Imports Apparent Consumption b 1993 6,655,400 42,643 10,170 6,622,927 1994 7,237,982 43,733 8,967 7,203,216 1995 6,890,321 43,627 16,867 6,863,561 1996 7,619,279 42,759 20,629 7,597,149 1997 7,732,971 46,518 20,267 7,706,720 1998 8,241,086 40,631 18,243 8,218,698 1999 8,931,700 34,171 24,920 8,922,449 2000 8,616,784 30,712 47,472 8,633,544 2001 7,941,432 30,547 27,579 7,938,464 2002 7,986,393 37,135 25,164 7,974,422 2003 8,519,678 46,286 20,807 8,494,199 2004 9,388,648 75,297 33,436 9,346,787 2005 9,418,759 52,008 49,432 9,416,183 2006 8,899,594 36,421 75,717 8,938,890 2007 7,237,176 40,613 70,914 7,267,477 2008 5,053,935 47,898 97,739 5,103,776 2009 3,585,481 37,640 d ,f 74,479 e ,f 3,622,320 2010 3,495,657 37,532 d ,f 79,054 e ,f 3,537,179 Note: This table presents data for brick (building or common and face), which, by the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.

a Bricks are 2 1/4′′ by 3 5/8′′ by 7 5/8′′ brick equivalent. b This represents shipment quantity of bricks. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the “ definitions ” Web page

for Curren t Industrial Reports at Census Bureau ’ s Web site ( http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html ). The relevant item is “ quantity and value of shipments. ” The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, transferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales p rice, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company ’ s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company o verhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded.
c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Bricks − Exports + Imports d The export data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The export

numbers seem to have the same pattern as shipment numbers. In particular, during 2001

– 2002 and 2007

– 2008 when brick shipment numbers were low, brick export numbers were also low. So we have estimated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 based on the regression exports = a + b*shipments , using 1993 to 2008 data. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports , the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Ho wever, because we lack reliable data on export prices for those years, we do not estimate the quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from the values data. (continued) Formatted Table2

- 13 Table 2 - 5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (10 3 bricks a ): 1993

– 2010 (continued)

e The import data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The import

numbers do not seem to be correlated with shipment numbers. For example, during 2001

– 2002 and 2007

– 2008 when bric k shipment numbers were low, brick import numbers were not that low. In fact, plotting the numbers suggests that imports show an increasing trend since 1993. So we have extrapolated to estimate the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a linear trend beginnin g in the year 1993. We fond imports to be lower in 2009 and 2010 compared with 2008, because the linear trend starts in 1993, and the unusually high 2008 number is only an outlier outside this trend. Another source of information for estimati ng import quan tities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports , the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. The value of imports drops approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack data on import prices for those years, we did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values. f Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and

2010 the industrial reports only list export a nd import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for shipment. So with the latter information, we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the export and import quantities. We explored any sys tematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systemati cally different and adjusted for those differences . We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (47,775 for 2009 and 65,099 for 2010) and import quantities (26,069 for 2009 an d 23,956 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite different from past

- year trends. So we decided to opt for the regression method of estimation. g As previous notes indicate, export and import numbers for 2009 and 2010 are estim ates. So the annual growth rates are

computed for both 1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bu reau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003

. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau . 2000

. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. As shown in Table 2

- 5, the brick market shows declines in the quantity of shipments and apparent consumption between 1993 and 2010 with a marked decreases during the recessions beginning in 2007 . An examination of the data during the time period 1993 to 20 10 shows that brick shipment and apparent consumption increased during some years and decreased during other years. However, because of the steep declines beginning in 2007, 2010 values are only about 53% of 1993 values. Brick shipments steadily increased from about 6.6 billion bricks in 1993 to 8. 6 billion bricks in 2000, dropped somewhat in 2001 and remained below the 2000 level until 2003, and rose again in 2004 and 2005 before beginning a steady decline starting in 2006.2

- 14 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for F acing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010

Year Shipments of Select Structural Clay Product s a Exports b Imports b Apparent Consumption c 1993 193,500 287 648 193,861 1994 188,039 3,187 915 185,767 1995 183,967 1,543 388 182,812 1996 204,908 1,610 345 203,643 1997 218,013 1,334 888 217,568 1998 207,815 2,291 291 205,815 1999 231,876 1,176 389 231,089 2000 217,448 2,092 346 215,702 2001 216,685 1,219 220 215,686 2002 177,558 1,583 607 176,582 2003 177,620 1,258 374 176,736 2004 210,981 1,473 915 210,423 2005 258,393 1,218 526 257,701 2006 219,911 1,041 341 219,211 2007 195,064 1,102 536 194,497 2008 132,181 1,164 463 131,480 2009 98,439 d 1,138 e ,g 512 f ,g 97,813 h 2010 73,183 d 1,098 e ,g 512 f ,g 72,597 h
Note: T his t able presents data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed, which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe , which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327123, Other Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. According to our communication with Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau, in all the Table 1s in the Current Industrial Reports, the category listed as “ Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick ” should in fact be “ Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed. ” The Current Industrial Reports since 1998 omitted the phrase “ including unglazed and salt glazed ” and only mentioned structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick. Calculation rules used when computing numbers from the Industrial reports for this table are 1 million brick equivalent = 2,000 short tons and 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short ton. The source for the first formula is http://midlandbrick.wikidot.com/standard

- brick

- equivalent, which says that 1 standard brick equivalent is equal to a 4 pound brick. Because 1 short ton is equal to 2,000 pounds, this implies the conversion ra tio used here. (continued) Formatted Table2

- 15 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010 (continued)

a This represents shipment quantity of select structural clay products. The definition of value of shipments can be found on th e

“ definitions ” Web page for Current Industrial Reports at the Census Bureau ’ s Web site ( http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html ). The relevant item is quantity and value of shipments. The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, tr ansferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, al lowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company ’ s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded. b For expor t and import numbers between 1998 and 2008, the export and import data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick

including unglazed and salt glazed are not available in the source reports (marked as (X) in the source reports), so the expo rt and import numbe rs are computed with vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings data only.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Select SCP − Exports + Imports d Readers should interpret these numbers carefully. For the 2009 and 2010 shipment numbers, the shipment data for facing tile

and ceramic glazed brick are not available in the source report and are marked as “ (S). ” “ (S) ” means that the numbers did not meet publication standards. We talked to Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau and learned that these numbers involved over 50% of imputation, which is the reason they were not published. However, these imputed numbers were available upon our request, and the 2009

– 2010 shipment numbers in this table were calculated using these numbers for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick i ncluding unglazed and salt glazed. Numbers for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are available in the source reports.
e Because the export quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers for

2 009 and 2010 are estimates for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings exports. The export numbers for vitrified clays do not seem to be correlated to shipment numbers. In particular, during the 2002

– 2003 and 2007

– 2008 recessions when shipment numbers are l ow, the vitrified clay export numbers are not low. Further, plotting the numbers suggests that the exports have decreased over time and exhibit smaller fluctuations over time since 1993. So we have extrapolated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a line ar trend beginning in the year 1993. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. However, beca use we lack reliable d ata on export prices, we do not estimate quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from these values. f Because import quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers here

are based on estimates. The import numbers do not seem to have the same pattern as the shipment numbers. In particular, during 2002

– 2003 and 2007

– 2008 when shipment numbers were obviously low, the import numbers were not. Plotting the numbers suggests that imports of structural clay products have fluctuated widely. So we simply set these numbers at their historical average. Another source of information for estimating import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports , the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Similar to bricks, the value of imports for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings dropped by about 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack reliable data on import prices, we did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values. g Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report bot h quantities and values for shipment. So with the latter information we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systemati cally different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (725 for 2009 and 1,346 for 201 0) and import quantities (206 for 2009 and 206 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed t o be quite different from past

- year trends. So we used the regression method of estimation for exports and historical average method for imports. h These are based on estimates. Please see notes e, f, and g. i As previous notes suggest, data for 2009 and 2010 are based on estimates. So the annual growth rates were computed for both

1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2010. U.S. Departme nt of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2006. (continued)2

- 16 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010 (continued) U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for C lay Construction Products

— Summary 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Constructi on Products

— Summary 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Product s

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1994. Both exports and imports of bricks increased between 1993 and 2008. The largest quantity of brick exports are to Canada (approximately 78% in 2010) (U.S. International Trade Commission [USITC], 2013). The largest quantities of brick and structural cl ay imports are from Germany (40% in 2010) and Mexico (37% in 2010) 8 (USITC, 2013). The average annual growth rate for exports was 3.16% during this time period. The growth rate for imports was much larger at 22.61%. In 1993, imports were about 10 million a nd jumped to 98 million by 2010, with significant increases happening in 1995, 2000, 2006, and 2008. This difference between brick export and import growth rates is also evident if we examine exports and imports as proportions of shipments instead of their levels. Exports started at 0.64% of shipments in the year 1993 but had dropped to 0.41% by 2006. Imports started at 0.15% of shipments in 1993 but rose to 0.85% of shipments in 2006. After 2006, both these ratios rose. By 2010, exports and imports as a pe rcentage of shipments rose to 1.07% and 2.26%, respectively. But the rises since 2006 were driven more by decreases in shipments, rather than by changes in the levels of exports and imports.

8 Although these two countries typically are the largest source of imports, the country shares vary from year to year. For example, in 2012, Germany and Mexico again accounted for more than 65% of imports, but Mexico represented 40% and Germany accounted for 24%.2

- 17 Table 2 - 7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993

– 2010 Year Shipments of Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) 1993 (D) 1994 (D) 1995 53,727 1996 50,990 1997 49,729 1998 49,098 1999 47,156 2000 47,009 2001 49,453 2002 49,563 2003 40,330 2004 40,050 2005 47,704 2006 37,491 2007 35,477 2008 23,410 2009 16,749 2010 12,140 Average Annual Growth Rates 1995

– 2010 −8.31% Note: T his t able presents data for structural clay tile (except facing), which, by 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing. Unlike Table 2

- 7 and Table 2

- 8, this table does not show exports, imports, or appar ent consumption, because the export and import data for structural clay tile (except facing) are not available (marked as (X) in the source reports). “ (D) ” means that the number is “ withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies ” in the source r eport. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2006 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2004 U.S. D epartment of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1999 U.S. Department of Commerce, C ensus Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Burea u. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1994. Formatted Table2

- 18 The market for other structural clay products is much smaller than the brick market, but it still represents an important sector of the BSCP industry. As Table 2

- 6 shows, both shipments and apparent consumption of structural clay products in 2010 were less than 38% of 1993 values

. Similar to the trend in the brick market, structural clay product shipments exhibited a steady increase from 194 thousand short tons in 1993 to 232 thousand short tons in 1999, dropped somewhat during the recession in 2002 and 200 3, rose between 2003 and 2006, and began a steady decline starting in 2007. Although structural clay product shipments and consumption declined over the time period 1993 to 2008, the average annual growth rate of exports was high at 67.42%. Although this g rowth rate looks large, it is relatively small in absolute terms. This high average growth rate is largely due to a substantial increase in exports of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings from 1993 to 1994. In 1993, 287 short tons of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings were exported from the United States, and in 1994, this number rose dramatically to 3,187 short tons. Since 1995, exports have mostly stayed between 1,000 and 2,000 short tons. Imports of structural clay products are small, never exceeding a thous and short tons in any year between 1993 and 2008. The shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) are even smaller than other structural clay products (which are presented in Table 2

- 6). As Table 2

- 7 shows, the average annual growth rate of shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) is approximately −8.3% for the years 1995 to 2010. More specifically, the shipments exhibit a steady decrease from 54 thousand short tons in 1995 to 35 thousand short tons in 2007, during which period the average an nual growth rate is only −2.9%. Then in the years 2008, 2009 , and 2010, the shipment levels dropped sharply by 34.0%, 28.5%, and 27.5%, respectively. As the data in Tables 2

- 5, 2

- 6, and 2

- 7 show, the quantities of all BSCP experienced declines starting in 2007, the year the recent economic crisis set in, and continued to decline post

- crisis. The data show that shipment levels had recovered after the 2002

– 2003 recession and held steady for the years prior to 2007. The decline since 2007 also appears to be du e to the 2007

– 2008 recession rather than to structural changes within the industry. We expect the industry to come back to its prerecession levels in the future. This is supported by the fact that shipment levels for all BSCP were low during 2001

– 2003, whe n the early 2000s recession happened in the United States and the European Union. However, these shipment levels bounced back after the recession. This prediction is also supported by the recent annual reports of large companies producing these products. F or example, the annual reports of large companies such as Boral Limited and Saint

- Gobain show them recovering after exhibiting declines during the recession.2

- 19 Boral Limited is an international building and construction materials group headquartered in Austr alia, and its U.S. operations manufacture clay bricks, concrete, and clay roof tiles and manufactured stone veneer for residential and mid

- rise commercial buildings. 9 The 2012 annual report of Boral Limited compares U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A. ’ s earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) during the years 2006

– 2012 and finds them to be highly correlated (Boral Limited, 2012 ). Both the numbers for U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A. ’ s EBIT in the U nited States declined simultaneously between 2006 and 2011 but rose in 2012. U.S. housing starts went from 2,030 thousand in fiscal year 2006 to 570 thousand in fiscal year 2011 , and Boral U.S.A. ’ s EBIT declined to − $ 99 million in 2011 from $ 139 million in 2006. Boral U.S.A. ’ s EBIT rose to − $ 87 million in fiscal year 2012 when U.S. housing starts increased to 685 thousand. Saint

- Gobain S.A, which produces construction products marketed in the United States under the CertainTeed brand, is a Europe

- based multinational company and does not provide its U.S. operations data separately. However, its overall data exhibit synchronization with the economic cycles. Its net sales declined from 30,274 million euros in 2002 (Saint

- Gobain, 2003; 2013 ) to 29,590 million euros in 2003, showed a steady recovery after that to 43,800 million euros in 2008, declined in 2009 to 37,786 million euros, and then recovered in 2011 and 2012 to 42,116 million euros and 43,198 million euros, respectively (Saint

- Gobain, 2013 ). Although their annual reports do not provide data on quantities in shipment, production , or exports as the Current Industrial Reports do, the recent trends in the financial performance of these large companies, in particular the profit and sales data, support that this industry will improve as the effects of the recession recede and the building and construction industry revives. In addition, our prediction that the BSCP industry is only experiencing a temporary setback and will c ome back to prerecession levels is supported by existing reports for the clay and shale industry, which is upstream of the BSCP industry. Put another way, r aw materials typically used in manufacturing BSCP include common clay and shale (Midwest Research In stitute, 2001 ). A recent advance report published in 2013 by the U.S. Department of the Interior and USGS suggests that once statistical data become available, the country may see a moderate growth in common clay sa les in 2012 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013 ). In their

9 This information is from the company’s Web site, http://www.boral.com . According to the Web site, Boral’s operations include the largest brick manufacturer and the largest clay tile manufacturer in the United States; through the 50% owned MonierLifetile, it is also the largest concrete roof tile manufacturer in the United States.2

- 20 analysis, the factors supporting the growth are the increases in housing starts and construction spending for commercial buildings similar to what i s evident from the Boral USA example. 2.5.1 Market Prices Average prices for brick and structural products vary by product type and over time. In 2010, the average price of brick was approximately $ 248 per 1,000 S.B.E., clay floor and wall tile was approximately $1.30 per square foot, and vitrified clay sewer pipe and fitting were $496 per short ton (Table 2

- 8 ). There is substantial variation in average brick prices across Census regions ($183 to $541) , as shown in Table 2

- 9 . Since 2005, average nominal prices fo r bricks and clay floor and wall tile have remained flat or fallen (Figure 2

- 2), while average nominal prices for other structural clay products have risen to higher levels. Table 2 - 8 . Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010
Product Average Price Units Brick, building or common and facing $248 $ per 1,000 S.B.E. Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings $496 $ per short ton Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Table 2 - 9 . Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010 Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E. New England $379 Middle Atlantic $324 East North Central $297 West North Central $272 South Atlantic $227 East South Central $183 West South Central $225 Mountain $355 Pacific $541 United States $248 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Formatted Table

Formatted Table2

- 21 Figure 2 - 2. Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products Source: U.S. Bureau of the Labor Statistics, 2013a,b 2.6 References Boral Limited. 2012. Annual Report 2012

. http://www.boral.com.au/Images/common/pdfs/annual

- reports/Boral

- Annual

- Report

2012.pdf

. Brick Industry Association. 2013a. An Overview of the American Brick Industry. http://www.gobrick.com/resources/americanbrickindustry/tabid/7644/defau lt.as px ( accessed on August 16, 2013). Brick Industry Association. 2013b. 2012 Brick Industry Annual Report

. V ersion 4.0. Federal Reserve Board. 2013. Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization

— G.17. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ (August 16, 2013). Ho, M., R. Morgenstern, J. Shih. 2008 . Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper DP 0 8

- 37

. http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF

- DP

- 08

- 37.pdf

. Midwest Research Institute. 2001. Industry Characterization for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

.2

- 22 Mohawk Industries, Inc. 2012. 2011 Annual Report

. http://phx.corporate

ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTMzMjE1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZ T0z&t=1

. National Association of Homebuilders. 2013. NAHB Study Reveals What Home Buyers Really Want. February 19, 201 3. Rutherford, T.F. 2002. Lecture Notes on Constant Elasticity Functions. http://www.gamsworld.eu/mpsge/debreu/ces.pdf

. Saint

- Gobain. 2003 Annual Report 2002 . http://www.saint

gobain.com/files/Ra pport_annuel_2002_EN.pdf

. Saint

- Gobain. 2013. Registration Document 2012. http://www.saint

gobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2012_EN.pdf

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013a. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) Series ID: CEU3132700003. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013b. Consumer Price Index

— All Urban Consumers Series ID: CUUR0000SA0. U.S. Census Bureau 2013 a . Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups and In dustries: 2011 and 2010; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov . ( August 16, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013 b. Geography Area Series: County Business Patterns: 2011; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder

. http://factfinder2.census.gov

. (August 16, 2013). U .S. Census Bureau. 2013c . Historical New Residential Construction Started. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/

. (August 16, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013d . New Residential Construction Press Release

. August 16, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/

. (August 16, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013e. Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of Value of Shipments Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for Industries: 2007; generated by RTI Internatio nal; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov . ( September 12, 2013). U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2011: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Const ruction Products

— Summary 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2009: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008.2

- 23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2007: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Prod ucts

— Summary 2006. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2005: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2004: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2003: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2002: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2000: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998. U.S. Department o f Commerce, Census Bureau

. 1998: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products; Summary, 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce , Census Bureau

. 1995: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1994. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

. May 2013

. 2011 Minerals Yearbook, Clay and Shale [Advance Release]

. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1

- 2011

- clays.pdf

. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. 2007 Commodity Flow Survey United States. Table 15. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow_surv ey/final_tables_december_2009/index.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Emission Factor Documentation for AP

- 42, Section 11.3 , “ Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Final Report. ” http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s03.pdf U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Minerals Yearbook: Clay and Shale. Written by R. L. Virta. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1

- 2011

- clays.pdf

.2

- 24 U.S. International Trade Commission. Interactive Trade and DataWeb. U.S. Imports for Consumption and U.S. Domestic Exports, NAICS 327121. (December 31, 2013). http://dataweb.usitc.gov/ , then search for NAICS 327121. U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2013. Table of Small Business Size Standards. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/size_table_07222013.pdf

.3

- 1 SECTION 3 ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS Production of BSCP results in emissions of pollutants such as hydrogen fluoride (HF ), hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl 2 ), mercury (Hg), and non

- Hg hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals from the kilns used in the production process. To control these emissions, EPA has developed emission standards for these HAPs under the authority of Section 112 of the CAA. This section explains how the estimate s of compliance costs associated with this regulation w ere developed , and it is organized as follows:

■ Section 3.1, Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach: This section describes the regulatory approaches considered in this analysis and presents the annual cost for each of the compliance options and the v arious regions of the country. It also describes the air pollution control devices (APCDs) and the pollutants targeted because they are key to understanding how the annual costs were obtained.

■ Section 3.2, Summary of Costs by Control Device: There are vari ous APCD implementation options to meet the compliance requirements. This section presents the overall capital and annual costs for those implementation options. It also provides key considerations for how the costs were derived. 3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach EPA evaluated costs for affected BSCP facilities under two regulatory approaches:

■ Proposed Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or g r/dscf or non

- Hg HAP metals in lb/hr for all kilns with no emissions averaging.

■ Alternate Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non

- Hg HAP meta ls lb/hr for small and large kilns (emissions averaging is allowed to meet the PM and non

- Hg HAP metals limits). Both approaches assume the facility would choose to become a Synthetic Area (SA) by installing dry limestone adsorbers (DLAs) on uncontrolled k ilns if that is less expensive than installing the control needed to comply with the compliance option. Both approaches have separate Hg numeric limits for large and small kilns, and the HBS applies to all kilns at the facility for all compliance options. These costs include the implementation of various APCDs. The following are the APCDs considered:3

- 2 ■ Dry injection fabric filter (DIFF). DIFFs are used to remove HF, HCl, Cl 2 , sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ), and PM. They work by injecting hydrated lime (a dry lime powde r) into the kiln exhaust. The lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an exhaust duct and are ducted to a fabric filter. The lime reacts with and removes HF, HCl, Cl 2 , and SO 2 from the exhaust stream.

■ Dry lime scrubber/ fabric filter (DLS/FF). D LS/FFs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl 2 , SO 2 , and PM emissions. These systems mix hydrated lime and water in a conditioning drum and then inject the lime/water slurry into a reaction chamber, where the slurry mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas removal t akes place in the reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and across the lime

- caked fabric filter bags. From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric filter for PM removal.

■ Dry limestone adsorber (DLA). DLAs are used to control HF, HCl , Cl 2 , and SO 2 emissions. Limestone is fed into the top of a reaction chamber countercurrent to the kiln exhaust gases. The limestone cascades through multiple baffles within the chamber and reacts with and removes HF and, to a lesser degree, HCl , Cl 2 and SO 2 from the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for controlling PM.

■ Fabric filter (FF). FFs are used to control PM emissions. Most FFs use long, cylindrical bags made of a woven material that acts as a filter medium. Gas enters the FF a nd is drawn through the bags, and PM accumulates in layers on the surface of the filter media until gas can no longer move through the bag. When the system reaches a sufficient pressure drop due to PM build

- up, the bag will be cleaned. The system does not provide a mechanism for controlling Hg, HCl, Cl 2 , or SO 2 .

■ Activated carbon injection (ACI). An ACI system would pneumatically inject activated carbon into the flue gas ductwork of a kiln. The activated carbon adsorbs the vaporized mercury from the flue gas and is then collected with the fly ash in a particulate collection device. This device is assumed to work with a fabric filter for particulates collection. Cost estimates were developed for each BSCP facility assuming the APCDs are implemented according t o various scenarios. In general, an FF and ACI were assumed to be the APCD needed to meet the MACT limits for an uncontrolled kiln. Table 3

- 1 presents the general implementation scenarios for tunnel kilns required to meet MACT for all pollutants.3

- 3 Table 3 - 1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

APCD Meets Non - Hg HAP Metals or PM Limit Meets Mercury Limit APCD Implementation Scenario None Yes No Install new FF with ACI None No Yes Install new FF None No No Install new FF with ACI Existing DIFF Yes Yes No action Existing DIFF Yes No Add ACI Existing DIFF No Yes Retrofit DIFF for PM control Existing DIFF No No Retrofit DIFF for PM control ; add ACI Existing DLS/FF Yes Yes No action Existing DLA Yes No Add FF with ACI Existing DLA No Yes Add FF Existing DLA No No Add FF with ACI

The option to “ Install new DLA ” was evaluated for facilities to become an SA. All scenarios in Table 3

- 1 assume meeting the HBS for acid gases. The following are the scenarios considered to meet the HBSs:

■ If a kiln can meet the non - Hg HAP metals or PM and Hg MACT limits and is located at a facility that can meet the health

- based limits, no additional costs would be incurred.

■ If an uncontrolled kiln or a kiln with a DLA is located at a facility that can meet the health

- based limits, then only a n FF would be needed to meet the non - Hg HAP metals or PM MACT limit, and activated carbon injection would be needed to meet the Hg MACT limit

.

■ Because the health

- based limits are on a facility

- wide basis, the owner or o perator of a facility not meeting the health

- based limits with current controls may not have to add an APCD to every uncontrolled kiln and enhance every existing APCD. Engineering judgment was used to assign minimum control “ actions needed ” based on a revi ew of the contribution of each emission point ’ s to the allow able HCl

equivalent emissions. Additional information about this assessment is presented in the memorandum “ Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector ” included in the docket. Table 3

- 2 presents the annual cost for each of the regulatory approaches. Formatted Table3

- 4 Table 3 - 2 . National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD)
Regions Proposed Standards Alternate Standards NEG New England $0 $0 MID Middle Atlantic $ 1 $ 1 ENC East North Central $ 4 $ 6 WNC West North Central $ 1 $ 2 SAC South Atlantic $ 7 $ 11 ESC East South Central $ 2 $ 4 WSC West South Central $ 5 $ 7 MTN Mountain < $ 1 < $ 1 PAC Pacific < $ 1 $ 1 USA United States $ 21 $ 31

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device A key component of the total annual costs presented in Table 3

- 1 is the implementation cost of the APCDs required to (1) meet the MACT limits for Hg and for non

- Hg HAP metals or PM , (2) become an SA source, and/or (3) meet an HBS for acid gases, according to the compliance options. This section provides an overview of how the capital and annual costs of implementation were estimated. Additional information about those estimates is p rovided in the memorandum “ Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector ” included in the docket. Consistent with the information presented in Section 3

. 1 , the following are the APCD implementation scenarios considered in this analysis:

■ Install new DLA

■ Install new ACI

■ Install new FF

■ Install new FF and ACI

■ Retrofit with DIFF

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI

■ No action Formatted Table3

- 5 Table 3

- 3 presents the capital and annual costs of each implementa tion option. Table 3 - 3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

Control options Capital Costs Annual Costs Small APCD Large APCD Small APCD Large APCD Install new FF $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $437,845 $526,006 Install new DLA $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $310,036 $409,718 Install new ACI $ 102,224 $ 146,697 $ 70,589 $ 96,842 Install new DIFF and ACI $ 2,102,224 $ 2,876,697 $ 683,886 $ 893,938 Install new FF and ACI $ 1,302,224 $ 1,646,697 $ 508,434 $ 622,848 Retrofit with DIFF $2,800,000 $3,820,000 $720, 811 $943, 585 Retrofit with DIFF and ACI $ 2,902,224 $ 3,966,697 $ 791,400 $ 1,040,427

C osts are presented for small and large APCD s . A small control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is less than 10 tons of bricks per hour. A large control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is 10 tons of bricks or more per hour. Capital cost data were generally obtained from the Information Collectio n Request (ICR) and supplemented with information from literature sources. The estimates of annual cost include

■ operation and maintenance (O&M) labor;

■ materials ;

■ electricity;

■ waste disposal ;

■ overhead ; and

■ property taxes, insurance, and administration

. Info rmation pertaining to cost data sources and how they were used to develop unit costs for each APCD is provided in the memorandum “ Methodology and Assumptions Used to Estimate the Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices. ” Formatted Table3

- 6 Annualization of the capital c o sts involves establi s hing an annual “ pay m ent ” sufficient to finance the invest m ent over the expected lifeti m e of the equip m ent or loan period. This pay m ent is typically referred to as th e “ ca p ital recovery cost. ” The th ree key inputs into the capital recovery costs are the capital costs, the interest rate, and the equipment life. This analysis assumed a 20

- year equipment life and a 7% interest rate, which corresponds to the interest rate used in OAQPS ’ s analyses. 3.3 Summary of Results This s ection presents total annualized costs for each regulatory approach. Total annualized cost is the sum of the annualized capital cost and the annual costs. The followin g is a summary of those results :

■ Proposed Standards: approximately $ 21 million

■ Alternate Standards: approximately $ 31 million Annual costs listed above for each compliance option also include costs for testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs incurred by facilities that have testing and monitoring costs. When looki ng at annual costs per region of the country, t he South Atlantic region ( SAC ) consistently exhibit s the highest cost and the Pacific region ( P AC) the lowest nonzero cost. The APCD requirements vary by approach, and the following is a summary of the annual costs for each of the APCD implementation scenarios, presented as ranges for small and large APCDs:

■ Install new DIFF : $613, 297

– $797, 096

■ Install new FF: $437,845

– $526,006

■ Install new DLA : $310,036

– $409,718

■ Install new ACI : $ 70,589

– $ 96,842

■ Install new DIFF a nd ACI : $ 683,886

– $ 893,938

■ Install new FF and ACI : $ 508,434

– $ 622,848

■ Retrofit with DIFF : $720, 811

– $943, 585

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI : $791,400

– $1, 040,4273

- 7 Retrofitting with DIFF and ACI is the option that exhibits the highest cost and installing a new ACI s ystem the lowest, which is consistent with the capital cost results. We provide additional details on the number of stack s required to take action to achieve compliance (Table 3

- 4). Additional details on existing baseline control devices is presented in the memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” included in the docket. Table 3 - 4 . Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD) Action to Achieve Compliance

Standards Parameter Install DLA (become

SA) Install FF Install FF + ACI Add ACI to Existing

APCD Retrofit with DIFF Totals Proposed Number of Stacks 14 4 16 3 1 38 Capital Cost $18.9 $5.40 $26.3 $0.440 $3.82 $54.9 Annual Cost $5.24 $1.93 $10.0 $0.289 $0.944 $18.4 Alternate Number of Stacks 31 16 15 3 1 66 Capital Cost $38.3 $21.6 $24.7 $0.440 $3.82 $88.9 Annual Cost $10.7 $7.71 $9.34 $0.289 $0.944 $29.0 Formatted Table4

- 1 SECTION 4 HUMAN HEALTH BENEFIT S OF EMISSIONS REDUC TIONS Synopsis Implementation of emissions controls required by the proposed Brick and Structural Clay NESHAP is expected to reduce direct emissions of p a rticulate m atter in particular PM 2.5 and sulfu r d ioxide SO 2 that are the result of emissions limits that are being tightened for a number of categories, and imposed for the first time for other categories

. In this section, we quantify the monetized co

- benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) by reducing emissions of precursors. The total PM 2.5 and SO 2 reductions are the consequence of the expected d esign changes to the affected manufacturing plants needed in order to meet the multiple limits. We estimate the total monetized co

- benefits to be $52 million to $120 million at a 3% discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a y early average in 2018 for the proposed standards

. All estimates are in 2011$. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as hi gh as 740 tons of HAPs each year through one of the regulatory approache s, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule would reduce several non

- mercur y HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year. 4.1 PM 2.5 - Related Human Health Co - Benefits This rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions o f SO 2 , which is a precursor to formation of ambient PM 2.5 . Therefore

, reducing these emissions would also reduce human exposure to ambient PM 2.5 and the incidence of PM 2.5 - related health effects. In this section, we provide an overview of the PM 2.5 - related benefits. A full description of the underlying data, studies, and assumptions is provided in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). In implementing this rule, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM 2.5 concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some areas and assist other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) also calculated PM benefits, t here are important differences worth noting in the4

- 2 design and analytical object ives of each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and benefits of attaining a revised air quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission reduction strategies for different sources including known and unknown controls, incremental t o implementation of existing regulations and controls need to attain the current standards. In short, NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the reduction strategies that States may choose to enact when implementing a revised NAAQS. The setting of a N AAQS does not directly result in costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and the estimated costs and benefits are not intended to be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result in specific costs of contro l and emission reductions. However, it is possible that some costs and benefits associated with the required emission controls estimated in this RIA may account for the same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM NAAQS RIA. By contra st, the emission reductions for implementation rules such as this rulemaking are generally for specific, well

- characterized sources. In general, EPA is more confident in the magnitude and location of the emission reductions for implementation rules. As suc h, emission reductions achieved under these and other promulgated implementation rules will ultimately be reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs and benefits associated with attaining revised future NAA QS. EPA remains forward looking towards the next iteration of the 5

- year review cycle for the NAAQS. As a result, EPA does not
re - issue NAAQS RIAs that retroactively update the baseline to account for implementation rules promulgated after a NAAQS RIA outs ide of the NAAQS review process. For more information on the relationship between the NAAQS and implementation rules such as analyzed here, please see Section 1.3 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a ). 4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA) (U.S. EPA, 2009) identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM 2.5, which include premature morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposure s. Table 4

- 1 provides the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in EPA ’ s benefits estimates for reduced exposure to ambient PM 2.5 . Although the table below does not include entries for the unquantified health effects such as exposure to ozone and N O 2 nor welfare effects such as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment, these effects are itemized in Chapters 5 and 6 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified benefit categories is not exhaustiv e, nor is quantification of each effect complete.4

- 3 Table 4 - 1 . Human Health Effects of Ambient PM 2.5

Category Specific Effect Effect Has Been Quantified Effect Has Been Monetized More Information in PM NAAQS RIA Improved Human Health Reduced incidence of premature mortality from exposure to PM 2.5 Adult premature mortality based on cohort study estimates and expert elicitation estimates (age >25 or age >30)   Section 5.6
Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.6 Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to PM 2.5 Non

- fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.6 Hospital admissions

— respiratory (all ages)   Section 5.6 Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular (age >20)   Section 5.6 Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)   Section 5.6 Acute bronchitis (age 8

– 12)   Section 5.6 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7

– 14)   Section 5.6 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

– 11)   Section 5.6 Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6

– 18)   Section 5.6 Lost work days (age 18

– 65)   Section 5.6 Minor restricted

- activity days (age 18

– 65)   Section 5.6 Chronic Bronchitis (age >26)

-- a

-- a Section 5.6 Emergency room visits for cardiovascular effects (all ages) -- a

-- a Section 5.6 Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50

– 79) -- a

-- a Section 5.6 Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages)

-- -- PM ISA b Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary function, non

- asthma ER visits, non

bronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and populations) -- -- PM ISA b

Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., low birth weight, pre

- term births, etc

. ) -- -- PM ISA b,c Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects

-- -- PM ISA b,c

a We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. In the PM NAAQS

RIA, these benefits were quantified in a sensitivity analysis, but not in the core analysis. b We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.
c We assess these benefits qualita tively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other

significant concerns over the strength of the association. Formatted Table4

- 4 We follow a “ damage

- function ” approach in calculating benefits, which estimates changes in individual health endpo ints (specific effects that can be associated with changes in air quality) and assigns values to those changes assuming independence of the values for those individual endpoints. Because EPA rarely has the time or resources to perform new rese arch to
measu re directly either the health outcomes or their values for regulatory analyses, our estimates are based on the best available methods of benefits transfer, which is the science and art of adapting primary research from similar contexts to estimate benefits for the environmental quality change under analysis. The health impact assessment (HIA) quantifies the changes in the incidence of adverse health impacts resulting from changes in human exposure to PM 2.5 or other air pollutants. We use the environmental Ben efits M apping and A nalysis Program (BenMAP) to systematize health impact analyses by applying a database of key input parameters, including population projections, health impact functions, valuation functions (Abt Associates, 2012). For this assessment, the HIA is limited to those health effects that are directly linked to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. There may be other indirect health impacts associated with implementing emissions controls, such as occupational health exposures. Epidemiological studies generally provide estimates of the relative risks of a particular health effect for a given increment of air pollution (often per 10 μg/m 3 for PM 2.5 ). These relative risks can be used to develop risk coefficients that relate a unit reduction in PM 2.5 to c hanges in the incidence of a health effect. We refer the reader to section 5.6 of the PM NAAQS RIA for more information regarding the epidemiology studies and risk coefficients applied in this analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and we briefly elaborate on adult p remature mortality below. The size of the mortality effect estimates from epidemiological studies, the serious nature of the effect itself, and the high monetary value ascribed to prolonging life make mortality risk reduction the most significant health en dpoint quantified in this analysis. Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies, the PM ISA documents the association between elevated PM 2.5 concentrations and ad verse health effects, including increased premature mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009). The PM ISA, which was twice reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board (SAB

- CASAC) (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2009b, 2009c), concluded that the re is a causal relationship between mortality and both long

- term and short

- term exposure to PM 2.5 based on the entire body of scientific evidence. The PM ISA also concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no

- threshold log

- linear mo del4

- 5 most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

- response relationship while recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration

- response function. For mortality, we use the effect coefficients from the most recent epid emiology studies examining two large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Krewski et al., 2009 ) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Lepeule et al., 2012 ). The PM ISA (U.S. EPA, 2009) concluded that the ACS and Six Cities cohorts provide the strongest evidence of the association between long

- term PM 2.5 exposure and premature mortality with support from a number of additional cohort studies. The SAB ’ s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB

- HES ) also supported using these two cohorts for analyses of the benefits of PM reductions (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2010a). As both the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we present benefits estimates using relative risk estimates from both these cohorts (Krewski et al., 2009; Lepeule et al., 2012). As a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM 2.5 - mortality relationship, EPA graphically presents benefits derived from EPA ’ s expert elicitation study (Roman et al., 2008; IEc, 2006). The primary goal of the 2006 study was to elicit from a sample of health experts probabilistic distributions describing uncertainty in estimates of the reduction in mortality among the adult U.S. population resulting from reductions in ambient annua l average PM 2.5 levels. In that study, twelve experts provided independent opinions of the PM 2.5 - mortality concentration

response function. Because the experts relied upon the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies to inform their concentration

- response functi ons, the benefits estimates derived from the expert responses generally fall between results derived from the these studies (see Figure 7

- 1). We do not combine the expert results in order to preserve the breadth and diversity of opinion on the expert panel . This presentation of the expert

- derived results is generally consistent with SAB advice (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2008), which recommended that the EPA emphasize that “ scientific differences existed only with respect to the magnitude of the effect of PM 2.5 on mort ality, not whether such an effect existed ” and that the expert elicitation “ supports the conclusion that the benefits of PM 2.5 control are very likely to be substantial .” Although it is possible that newer scientific literature could revise the experts ’ qu antitative responses if elicited again, we believe that these general conclusions are unlikely to change. 4.1.2 Economic Valuation After quantifying the change in adverse health impacts, we estimate the economic value of these avoided impacts. Reductions in ambi ent concentrations of air pollution generally lower the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large population. Therefore, the4

- 6 appropriate economic measure is willingness to pay (WTP) for changes in risk of a health effect. For some health effects, such as hospital admissions, WTP estimates are generally not available, so we use the cost of treating or mitigating the effect. These cost

- of

- illness (COI) estimates generally (although not necessarily in every case) understate the true v alue of reductions in risk of a health effect. They tend to reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment but not the value of avoided pain and suffering from the health effect. The unit values applied in this analysis are provided in Table 5

- 9 of t he PM NAAQS RIA for each health endpoint (U.S. EPA, 2012a). Avoided premature deaths account for 98% of monetized PM

- related benefits. The economics literature concerning the appropriate method for valuing reductions in premature mortality risk is still de veloping. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economics and public policy analysis community. Following the advice of the SAB ’ s Environmental Economics Ad visory Committee (SAB

- EEAC), the EPA currently uses the value of statistical life (VSL) approach in calculating estimates of mortality benefits, because we believe this calculation provides the most reasonable single estimate of an individual ’ s willingness to trade off money for reductions in mortality risk (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2000). The VSL approach is a summary measure for the value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. EPA continues work to update its guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions, and the Agency consulted several times with the SAB

- EEAC on the issue. Until updated guidance is available, the Agency determined that a single, peer

- reviewed estimate applied consistently best reflects the SAB

- EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, EPA has decided to apply the VSL that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000) 10 while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. This approach ca lculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$). 11 We then adjust this VSL to account for the currency year u sed in this RIA and to account for income growth from 1990 to the analysis year.

10 In the updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e), EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the SAB with the understanding that further updates to the mortality r isk valuation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. 11 In 1990$, this VSL is $4.8 million.4

- 7 The Agency is committed to using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding to the SAB

EEAC ’ s specific recommendations. In the process, the Agency has identified a number of important issues to be considered in updating its mortality risk valuation estimates. These are detailed in a white paper on “ Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Environmental Policy, ” (U.S. EPA, 2010c) which recently underwent review by the SAB

- EEAC. A meeting with the SAB on this paper was held on March 14, 2011 and formal recommendations were transmitted on July 29, 2011 (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2011). Draft guidance r esponding to SAB recommendations will be developed shortly. In valuing premature mortality, we discount the value of premature mortality occurring in future years using rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). We assume that there is a “ cessation ” lag between chang es in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although the structure of the lag is uncertain, the EPA follows the advice of the SAB

- HES to assume a segmented lag structure characterized by 30% of mortality reductions in the fir st year, 50% over years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 20 after the reduction in PM 2.5 (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2004c). Changes in the cessation lag assumptions do not change the total number of estimated deaths but rather the timing of those deaths. 4.1.3 Benefit - pe r - ton Estimates Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a “ benefit

- per - ton ” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. EPA has applied in several previous RIAs (e.g., U.S . EPA, 2011b, 2011d, 2012b ). These benefit

per - ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of PM 2.5 (or PM 2.5 precursor such as NO x or SO 2 ) from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates from the “ Other Non

- EGU Point ” sector 12 , 13 by the corresponding emission reductions. The method used to derive these estimates is described in the Technical Support Document (TSD) on estimating the benefits

- per - ton of reducing PM 2.5 and its precursors (U.S. EPA, 2013). One limitation of using the benefit

- per - ton approach is an inability to provide estimates of the health benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO 2 or ozone.

12 As explained in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013), we only have benefit

- per - ton estimates for certain analysis years (i.e., 2005, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030). Fo r this RIA, we selected the benefit

- per - ton estimate closest to the analysis year for this RIA. 13 [Data from year 20 16 was used as closest to full implementation year 20 18 for this rule , and the sector was matched with Non EGU Others category ]4

- 8 The benefit

- per - ton estimates described in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013) were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. (2012), but they have since been updated to reflect the studies and population data in the final PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. E PA, 2012a). The approach in Fann et al. (2012) is similar to the work previously published by Fann et al. (2009), but the newer study includes improvements that EPA believes would provide more reliable estimates of PM 2.5 - related health benefits for emissio ns reductions in specific sectors. Specifically, the air quality modeling data reflect sectors that are more narrowly defined. In addition, the updated air quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions data (2005 rather than 2001) and has higher spa tial resolution (12km rather than 36 km grid cells). As noted below in the characterization of uncertainty, all benefit

- per - ton estimates have inherent limitations. Specifically, all national

- average benefit

- per - ton estimates reflect the geographic distri bution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions in this rulemaking, and they may not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for an y specific location. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

per - ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 levels, which drive population exposu re. The sector

- specific modeling does not provide estimates of the PM 2.5 - related benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to other PM 2.5 precursors (U.S. EPA, 2012a). 4.1.4 PM 2.5 Co - Benefits Re sults Table 4

- 2 summarizes the monetized PM

- related health benefits by precursor pollutant, including the emission reductions and benefit

- per - ton estimates using discount rates of 3% and 7%. Table 4

- 3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidenc es associated with these pollution reductions. Figure 4

- 1 provides a visual representation of the range of PM 2.5 - related benefits estimates using concentration

- response functions from Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et al. (2012) as well as the 12 functi ons supplied by experts. In Table 4

- 4 , we provide the benefits using our anchor points of Krewski et al. , and Lepeule et al. , as well as the results from the 12 expert s ’ elicitation on P M mortality.4

- 9 Table 4 - 2 . Summary of Monetized PM 2.5 and its Precursor SO 2 - Related Health Co Benefits Estimates for the Brick and S tructural C lay Rule in 20 18 (201 1 $) a

Pollutant Emissions Reductions

(tons) Benefit per ton (Krewski,

3%) Benefit per ton (LePeule,

3%) Benefit per to n (Krewski,

7%) Benefit per ton (LePeule,

7%) Total Monetized Benefits (millions

2011$ at 3%) Total Monetized Benefits (millions

2011$ at 7%)ProposedStandards Direct PM 2.5 170 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $ 45 to $1 00 $ 41 to $9 2 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 173 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $ 7 to $ 16 $ 6 to $ 14 Total $5 2 to $120 $4 7 to $110AlternateStandards Direct PM 2.5 242 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $6 4 to $14 5 $5 8 to $130 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 337 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $1 4 to $ 3 1 $1 2 to $ 2 7
Total $ 78 to $1 8 0 $7 0 to $160

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. It is important to

note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct exposure to NO 2 , ozone exposure, e cosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. T he monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

per - ton methodology. Table 4 - 3 . Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences fr om PM 2.5 and its Precursor SO 2 - Related Co - Benefits for Brick and S tructural C lay Rule in 20 18 a Avoided Premature Mortality Propos ed Standards Alternate Standards Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) 6 9 Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) 13 20 Avoided Morbidity

Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) 3 5 Acute bronchitis (age 8

– 12) 9 14 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7

– 14) 120 170 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

– 11) 170 250 Minor restricted

- activity days (age 18

– 65) 4 , 700 7 , 000 Lost work days (age 18

– 65) 780 1 , 200 Asthma exacerbation (age 6

– 18) 170 250 Hospital admissions

— respiratory (all ages) 2 2 Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular (age > 18) 2 3 Non

- Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18) Peters et al. (2001) 6 9 Pooled estimate of 4 studies 1 1

a All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. Confidence intervals are unavailable for

this analysis because of the benefit

- per - ton methodology. Formatted Table

Formatted Table4

- 10 Figure 4 - 1 . Total Monetized PM 2.5 Co - Benefits of Proposed Brick and S tructural C lay Rule in 20 18 a

a This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the

Krewski et al. study and the Lepeule et al

. study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA ’ s expert elicitation on PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; rather, the estimates are based in part on the concentration

- response function s provided in those studies. $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert Functions Proposed Standards

3% 7%

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert Functions Proposed Standards

3% 7%4

- 11 Table 4 - 4. All PM 2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 201 8 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($201 1 millions) a
Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7% Benefit - per - ton Coefficients Derived from Epidemiology Literature Krewski et al. $52 $47 $78 $70 Lepeule et al. $120 $110 $180 $160 Benefit - per - ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation

Expert A $130 $120 $200 $180 Expert B $110 $98 $160 $150 Expert C $110 $96 $160 $140 Expert D $75 $68 $110 $100 Expert E $170 $160 $260 $230 (continued) Formatted Table4

- 12 Table 4 - 4. All PM 2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 201 8 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($201 1 millions) a (continued) Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7% Expert F $100 $91 $150 $140 Expert G $63 $57 $94 $85 Expert H $78 $71 $120 $100 Expert I $110 $95 $160 $140 Expert J $86 $78 $130 $120 Expert K $13 $12 $19 $18 Expert L $73 $66 $110 $98

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. Estimates do not include confidence intervals because they

were derived through the benefit

- per - ton technique described above. The benefits estimates from the expert elicitation are provided as a reason able characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated with the concentration

- response function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

- per - ton methodology. The specific control technologies f or the proposed rule are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefit s , including an increase of 28 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO x ), less than two tons of PM, three tons of carbon monoxide CO, and 82 tons of Sulfer dioxide (S O 2 ) each year. Given the insign ificant increase only secondary effects of PM and SO 2 were included in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits. 4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 Co - Benefits In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from nu merous models, there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. This analysis is no exception. This analysis includes many data sources as inputs, including emission inventories, air quality data from models (with their associated parameters and inputs) , population data, population estimates, health effect estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data for monetizing benefits, and assumptions regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human behavior). Each of these in puts may be uncertain and would affect the benefits estimate. When the uncertainties from each stage of the analysis are compounded, even small uncertainties can have large effects on the total quantified benefits. Therefore, the estimates of annual benefi ts should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits expected, rather than the actual benefits that would occur every year. Formatted Table4

- 13 This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) beca use we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. However, the results of the uncertainty analyses presented in the PM NAAQS RIA can provide some information regarding the uncertainty inherent in the benefits result s presented in this analysis. Sensitivity analyses conducted for the PM NAAQS RIA indicate that alternate cessation lag assumptions could change the PM 2.5 - related mortality benefits discounted at 3% by between 10% and

– 27% and that alternate income growth adjustments could change the PM 2.5 - related mortality benefits by between 33% and −14%. Unlike the PM NAAQS RIA, we do not have data on the specific location of the air quality changes associated with this rulemaking. As such, it is not feasible to estimate the proportion of benefits occurring in different locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. Instead, we applied benefit

- per - ton estimates, which reflect specific geographic patterns of emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits mo deling assumptions. For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over

- estimate or under

- estimate of the actual bene fits of controlling PM precursors. Use of these $/ton values to estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than if benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in applying these estimates to emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are all based on national or broad regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent average benefits

- per - ton over the entire United States. The benefits

- per - ton for emission redu ctions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here. To the extent that the geographic distributions of the emissions reductions for this rule are different than the modeled emissions, the benefits may be underestimated or overestimated. In general, there is inherently more uncertainty for new sources, which may not be included in the emissions inventory, than existing sources. For more information, see the TSD describing the calculation of these benefit

- per - ton estimates (U .S. EPA, 2013). Our estimate of the total benefits is based on EPA ’ s interpretation of the best available scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB

- HES and the NAS (NRC, 2002 ). Below are key assumptions underlying the estim ates for premature mortality which accounts for 98% of the total monetized PM 2.5 benefits: 1. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, bec ause PM 2.5 varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific4

- 14 evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimate s by particle type. The PM ISA concluded that “ many constituents of PM 2.5 can be linked with multiple health effects, and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific outcomes ” (U.S. EPA, 2009). 2. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is log

- line ar without a threshold in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM 2.5 , including both areas that do not meet the fine particle standard and those areas that are in att ainment, down to the lowest modeled concentrations. 3. We assume that there is a “ cessation ” lag between the change in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in mortality effects. Specifically, we assume that some of the incidences of premature mo rtality related to PM 2.5 exposures occur in a distributed fashion over the 20 years following exposure based on the advice of the SAB

- HES (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2004c), which affects the valuation of mortality benefits at different discount rates. In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less conf ident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level [LML] or one standard deviation below the mean of the air qualit y data in the study ) a llow readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM 2.5 mortality benefits. There a re uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less, and the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these concentration benchma rks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements. 14 Rather, the benefits estimates reported in this RIA are the best estimates because they reflect the full range of air quality concentrations as sociated with the emission reduction strategies and because the current body of scientific literature indicates that a no

- threshold model provides the best estimate of PM

- related long

- term mortality. In other words, although we may have less confidence in the magnitude of the risk at

14 F or a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a threshold in the PM 2.5 - mortality relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration

- Response Fu nction for PM 2.5 - related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b).4

- 15 concentrations below these benchmarks, we still have high confidence that PM 2.5 is causally associated with risk at those lower air quality concentrations. For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data is not available du e to time or resource limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule ’ s emission reductions at each PM 2.5 level. However, we believe that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM 2.5 level in the baseline of the source apportionment modeling used to calculate the be nefit

- per - ton estimates for this sector. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates population, and change in air quality. In other words, the percentage of the po pulation exposed to air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, which we are unable to quantify for rules withou t rule

- specific air quality modeling, is the shift in exposure associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules that had air quality modeling. Table 4

- 5 provides the percentage of the population exposed above and below two concentration benchmarks (i.e., LML and 1 standard deviation below the mean) in the modeled baseline. Figure 4

- 2 shows a bar chart of the percentage of t he population exposed to various air quality levels in the baseline, and Figure 4

- 3 shows a cumulative distribution function of the same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. Table 4 - 5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studies a
Epidemiology Study Below 1 Std. Dev. Below AQ Mean At or Above 1 Std. Dev. Below AQ Mean Below LML At or Above LML Krewski et al. (2009) 89 % 11 % 7 % 93 % Lepeule et al. (2012) N/A N/A 23 % 67 %

a One standard deviation below the mean is equivalent to the middle of the range between the 10 th and 25 th

percentile. For Krewski, the LML is 5.8 μg/m 3 and one standard deviation below the mean is 11.0 μg/m 3 . For Lepeule et al., the LML is 8 μg/m 3 and we do not have the data for one standard deviation below the mean. It is important to emphasize that although we have lower levels of confidence in levels below the LML for each study, the scientific evidence does not support the existence of a level below which health effects from exposure to PM 2.5 do not occur. Formatted Table4

- 16 Figure 4 - 2 . Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 Exposure in the Baseline Among the populations exposed to PM 2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exp osed to PM 2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study 67% are exposed to PM 2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study 4.2 Unquantified Benefits The monetized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monet izing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits associated with the potential exposure to HAP, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment due to the absence of air quality modeling data for these pollutants in this analys is. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated with these emission reductions. In this section, we provide a qualitative description of these benefits. Below is a detailed qualitative assessment of health benefits related to multiple HAPs th at have been reduced among including HAPs metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium ). 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

<1 1

- 2 2

- 3 3

- 4 4

- 5 5

- 6 6

- 7 7

- 8 8

- 9 9

- 10 10

- 11 11

- 12 12

- 13 13

- 14 14

- 15 15

- 16 16

- 17 17

- 18 18

- 19 19

- 20Percentage of Population Exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM 2.5 Level (μg/m 3 ) LML of Lepeule et al. (2012) study LML of Krewski et al. (2009) study4

- 17 Figure 4 - 3. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 Exposure in the Baseline Among the populations exposed to PM 2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM 2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study 67% are exposed to PM 2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study 4.2.1 HAP Benefits Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by approximately 42% since 1990, the 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) predicts that most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that have the potential to cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c). 15 The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage. In order to identify and prioritize a ir toxics, emission source types and locations that are of greatest potential concern, U.S. EPA conducts the NATA. 16 The

15 The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 16 The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting regulator y standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting regulatory priorities, and informing the d ecision making process. U.S. EPA.(2011)

. 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Cumulative percentage of population exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM 2.5 Level (μg/m 3 ) LML of Krewski et al. (2009) study LML of Lepeule et al. (2012) study4

- 18 most recent NATA was conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. NATA includes four steps: 1

. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources 2

. Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States 3

. Estimating population exposures across the United States 4

. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both cancer and noncancer effects Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is about 50 in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are formaldehyde and benzene. 17 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks , while stationary, mobile and background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk. Noncancer health effects can result from chronic, 18 subchronic, 19 or acute 20 inhalation exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiov ascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 NATA, about three

- fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic concentration of air toxics that has the pot ential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects. Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer respiratory risk. Figures 4

- 4 and 4

- 5 depict the estimated census tract

- level carcinogenic risk and
noncancer re spiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that l arge reductions in HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because

17 Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including both quantitative (e. g., model

- to

- monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 18 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database (http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used laboratory animal species). 19 De fined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically used laboratory animal species). 20 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.4

- 19 Figure 4 - 4. Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)
toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For example, acetaldehyde mass emissions are more than double acrolein emissions on a national basis, according to EPA ’ s 2005 National Em issions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower than that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than acetaldehyde. Thus, i t is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass of the targeted emissions. Due to methodology and time limitations under the court

- ordered schedule, we were unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of these rules. In a few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA has quantified the benefits of potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and non

- cancer risk (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995 ). In those analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) developed4

- 20 Figure 4 - 5. Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)
through risk assessment procedures. 21 These URFs are designed to be conservative, and as such, are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most likely estimate of risk. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high

- end, conservative risk estimates would overestimate the benefits of the regulation. While we used high

- end risk estimates in past analyses, advice from the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid using high

- end estimates in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2002 ). Since this time, EPA has continued to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP. As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act (U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with

21 The unit risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the probability of contracting cancer f rom a 70

- year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m 3 of a pollutant.4

- 21 reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009 ). Whi le reviewing the draft report, EPA ’ s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis concluded that “ the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of exposure - response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods ” (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2008 ). In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations from this w orkshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and vulnerable populations, and improving dose

- response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011 ). In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in canc er incidences requires several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non

- fatal). Due to methodology and time limitations under the court

- ordered schedule, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by these rules. E PA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of risk. Below we describe the health effects associated with the HAP that would be reduc ed by this rulemaking. 4.2.1.1 Arsenic Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is found throughout the environment and is considered toxic through the oral, inhalation and dermal routes. Acute (short

- term) high

- level inhalation exposure to As dust or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage); central and peripheral nervous system disorders have occurred in workers acutely exposed to inorganic As. Chronic (long

- term) inhalation exposure to i norganic As in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Chronic inhalation can also lead to conjunctivitis, irritation of the throat and4

- 22 respiratory tract and perforation of the nasal septum. 22 Chronic oral exposure has resulte d in gastrointestinal effects, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver or kidney damage in humans. Inorganic As exposure in humans, by the inhalation route, has been shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic As in humans has been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to bladder, liver, and lung cancer. EP A has classified inorganic As as a Group A, human carcinogen. 23 4.2.1.2 Cadmium (Cd) 24 Breathing air with lower levels of Cd over long period s of time (for years) results in a build

- up of Cd in the kidney, and if sufficiently high, may result in kidney disease. Lung cancer has been found in some studies of workers exposed to Cd in the air and studies of rats that inhaled Cd. The U.S. DHHS has d etermined that Cd and Cd compounds are known human carcinogens. The IARC has determined that Cd is carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined that Cd is a probable human carcinogen. 4.2.1.3 Chlorine (Cl 2 ) The acute (short term) toxic effects of Cl 2 are primarily d ue to its corrosive properties. Chlorine is a strong oxidant that upon contact with water moist tissue (e.g., eyes, skin, and upper respiratory tract) can produce major tissue damage. 25 Chronic inhalation exposure to low concentrations of Cl 2 (1 to 10 parts per million, ppm) may cause eye and nasal irritation, sore throat, and coughing. Chronic exposure to Cl 2 , usually in the workplace, has been reported to cause corrosion of the teeth. Inhalation of higher concentrations of Cl 2 gas (greater than 15 ppm)
can rapidly lead to respiratory distress with airway constriction and accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema). Exposed individuals may have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue discoloration of the skin, wheezing, Rales or hemoptysis (coughin g up blood or blood

- stain

22 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Arsenic. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available on the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg168.html#bookmark02> 23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System File for Arsenic. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental As sessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm. 24 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Public Health Statement for Cadmium

. CAS# 1306

- 19

- 0. Atlanta , GA: U.S. Departme nt of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=46&tid=15 >. 25 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=198&tid=36.4

- 23 sputum). Intoxication with high concentrations of Cl 2 may induce lung collapse. Exposure to Cl 2 can lead to reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), a chemical irritant

- induced type of asthma. Dermal exposure to Cl 2 may cause irritation, burns, inflammation and blisters. EPA has not classified Cl 2 with respect to carcinogenicity. 4.2.1.4 Chromium (Cr) 26 Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent Cr (Cr+3) or hexavalent Cr (Cr+6). The respiratory tract is the major target organ for Cr +6 toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure to Cr +6 , while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronch itis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposures. Limited human studies suggest that Cr +6 inhalation exposure may be associated with complications during pregnancy and childbirth, but there are no supporting data from animal studies reporting reproductive effects from inhalation exposure to Cr +6

. Human and animal studies have clearly established the carcinogenic potential of Cr +6 by the inhalation route, resulting in an increased risk of lun g cancer. EPA has classified Cr +6 as a Group A, human carcinogen. Trivalent Cr is less toxic than Cr +6

. The respiratory tract is also the major target organ for Cr +3 toxicity, similar to Cr +6

. EPA has not classified Cr +3 with respect to carcinogenicity. 4.2.1.5 Hy drogen Chloride (HCl) Hydrogen chloride is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour. 27 The greatest impact is on the upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue coloring of the skin, and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead to RADS, a chemically

- or irritant

- induced type of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Chi ldren may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Chromium VI. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Researc h and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 27 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.go v/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.4

- 24 evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for carcinogenic effects. 28 4.2.1.6 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) 29 Hydrogen cy anide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may cause abrupt onset of profound central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects, leading to death within minutes. Exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide may produce eye irritation, headache, confusion, nausea, and vomiting followed in some cases by coma and death. Hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant. By binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase, it prevents the utilization of oxygen in cellular metabolism. The central nervous system and myocardium are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of cyanide. 4.2.1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 30 Acute (short

- term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and pu lmonary edema. Chronic (long

- term) oral exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause dental fluorosis. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to fluoride via inhalation. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity. 4.2.1.8 Lead (Pb) 31 The main target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Long

term exposure of adults to Pb at work has resulted in decreased performance in some tests that measure functions of the nervous system. Lead exposure may also cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles. Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood press ure, particularly in middle

- aged and older people. Lead exposure may also cause anemia.

28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen Chloride. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This mate rial is available electronically at .http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. 29 All health effects language for this section came from: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) ( CAS# : 7782

- 50

- 5). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Mhmi/mmg8.html#bookmark02

. 30 U .S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. EPA/600/8

- 89/002F. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Asse ssment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 1989. 31 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. P ublic Health Statement for Lead. CAS# : 7439

- 92

- 1 . Atlanta , GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/phs13.html >.4

- 25 Children are more sensitive to the health effects of Pb than adults. No safe blood Pb level in children has been determined. At lower levels of exposure, Pb can affect a child ’ s mental and physical growth. Fetuses exposed to Pb in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood also may slow mental development and cause lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that these effects may persist beyond childhood. There are insufficient data from epidemiologic studies alone to conclude that Pb causes cancer (is carcinogenic) in humans. The DHHS has determined that Pb and Pb compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens based on limited evidence from studies in humans and sufficient evidence from animal studies, and the EPA has determined that Pb is a probable human carcinogen. 4.2.1.9 Manganese (Mn) 32 Health effects in humans have b een associated with both deficiencies and excess intakes of Mn. Chronic exposure to high levels of Mn by inhalation in humans results primarily in central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye

- hand coordination were affecte d in chronically

- exposed workers. Mangan ism , characterized by feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in ma le workers afflicted with M angan ism attributed to inhalation exposures. The EPA has classified Mn in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans. 4.2.1.10 Mercury (Hg) Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury (Me Hg). Because Hg is a persistent pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially the tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS Study was issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg on hu man health (NRC, 2000)

. 33 Many of the peer

- reviewed articles cited in this section are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other related and more recent publications to complement the material summarized by the NRC in 2000.

32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Manganese. Natio nal Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 33 National Research Council (NRC). 2000 . Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.4

- 26 In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an RfD (NRC, 2000); in particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or neuropsychological tests. The NAS report noted that studies in animals reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain development and memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology studies

. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are associated with the ability of children to learn and to succeed in school. They concluded the following: “ The population at highest risk is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school. ” The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 2000. Based on these and other studies, the NRC concluded that “ Although the data base is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the cardiovascular system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals. ” The NRC also stated that “ additional studies are needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life. ” Additional cardio vascular studies have been published since 2000. The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose

- response assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg exposures, as there is no consensus among scientists on the dose

- response functions for thes e effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as to the association between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. The pharmacokinetics of some of the exposure measures (such as toenail Hg levels) are not well und erstood. The studies have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well

- established neurotoxicity data base. The Mercury Study 34 noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but is capable of causing chromosomal damage in a number of experimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence that human exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for potential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River region in Brazil (Amorim et al., 2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in h air and DNA damage

34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress , EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2009

– 0234

– 3054. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm>.4

- 27 in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes 35 . Long

- term MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely chromosomal aberrations) may result from dieta ry, chronic MeHg exposures similar to and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles populations. Although exposure to some forms of Hg can result in a decrease in immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 2000) 36

. Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a “ possible ” human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002) 37 , 38 . The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic effects in humans from low

- dose chronic exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies have found no significant association between Hg exposure and overall cancer incidence, although a few studies have shown an association between Hg exposure and specific types of cancer incidence (e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000). There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in humans from MeHg exposure. However, overall, human data regardi ng reproductive, renal, and hematological toxicity from MeHg are very limited and are based on either studies of the two high

- dose poisoning episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological studies of chronic exposures at the levels o f interest in this analysis. 4.2.1.11 Nickel (Ni) 39 Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation exposure to Ni. No information is available regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but

35 Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J . Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 72(4): 497

- 507. 36 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicolog ical Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental Ass essment. Office of Research and Development. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm 38 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Bery llium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. Br. J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303

- 308 (as cited in NRC 2000). 39 Nickel (IARC Summary & Evaluation , Volume 49, 1990), Please check if there are relevant to this sectorhttp://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol49/nickel.html4

- 28 animal studies have reported su ch effects. Human and animal studies have reported an increased risk of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to Ni refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. The EPA has classified nickel subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human carcinogen 40 , 41
. The IARC has classified Ni compounds as carcinogenic to humans. 4.2.1.12 Selenium (Se) 42 Acute exposure to elemental Se, hydrogen selenide, and selenium dioxide (SeO 2 ) by inhalation results primarily in respiratory effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, pulmonary edema, severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. One Se compound, selenium sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. The EPA has classified elemental Se as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen. 4.2.2 Additional SO 2 Health Co - Benefits In addition to being a precursor to PM 2.5 , SO 2 emissions are also associated with a variety of adverse health effects associated with direct exposure. Unfortunat ely, we were unable to estimate the health co - benefits associated with reduced SO 2 in this analysis because we do not have air quality modeling data available. Therefore, this analysis only quantifies and monetizes the PM 2.5 co - benefits associated with the reductions in SO 2 emissions. Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory studies, the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur

— Health Criteria (SO 2 ISA) concluded that there is a causal relationship b etween respiratory health effects and short

- term exposure to SO 2 (U.S. EPA, 2008a). The immediate effect of SO 2 on the respiratory system in humans is bronchoconstriction. Asthmatics are more sensitive to the effects of SO 2 likely resulting from preexistin g inflammation associated with this disease. A clear concentration

response relationship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies following exposures to SO 2 at concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, both in terms of increasing severity of effect and per centage of asthmatics adversely affected. Based on our review of this information, we identified four short

- term morbidity endpoints that the SO 2 ISA identified as a “ causal relationship ” : asthma exacerbation, respiratory

- related emergency department visit s, and

40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Subsulfide. National Cente r for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Carbonyl. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Selenium and Compounds. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.4

- 29 respiratory

- related hospitalizations. The differing evidence and associated strength of the evidence for these different effects is described in detail in the SO 2 ISA. The SO 2 ISA also concluded that the relationship between short

- term SO 2 exposure and premature mortality was

“ suggestive of a causal relationship ” because it is difficult to attribute the mortality risk effects to SO 2 alone. Although the SO 2 ISA stated that studies are generally consistent in reporting a relationship between SO 2 exposu re and mortality, there was a lack of robustness of the observed associations to adjustment for pollutants. We did not quantify these co - benefits due to data constraints. 4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co - Benefits Reducing secondary formation of PM 2.5 would improve levels visibility in the U.S. because suspended particles and gases degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light (U.S. EPA, 2009). Fine particles with significant light

- extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Visibility has direct significance to people ’ s enjoyment of daily activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility increases the quality of life where individuals live and work, and where they engage in
recr eational activities. Particulate sulfate is the dominant source of regional haze in the eastern U.S. and particulate nitrate is an important contributor to light extinction in California and the upper Midwestern U.S., particularly during winter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Previous analyses ( U.S. EPA, 2011a) show that visibility benefits can be a significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are not unable to estimate visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether the emissi on reductions associated with this rule would be likely to have a significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 4.3 References Abt Associates, Inc. 2012. BenMAP User ’ s Manual Appendices . Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/models/BenMAPAppendicesOct2012.pdf>. Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “ The influence of location, so urce, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. ” Air Qual Atmos Health 2:169

– 176. Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “ Characterizing the PM2.5

- related health benefits of emission reductions f or 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S. ” Environment International 49 41

– 151. Gwinn, M.R ., J . Craig, D.A . Axelrad, R . Cook, C . Dockins, N . Fann, R

. Fegley, D.E . Guinnup, G

. Helfand, B . Hubbell, S.L . Mazur, T . Palma, R.L . Smith, J . Vandenberg, and4

- 30 B

. Sonawane. 2011. “ Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants

— summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations. ” Environ Health Perspect

. Jan; 119(1): p. 125

- 30. Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study

— Health Benefits of Benzene Reductions in Houston, 1990

– 2020 . Final Report, July 14, 2009. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul y_2009.pdf>. Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the Concentration

- Response Relationship Between PM 2.5 Exposure and Mortality . Prepared for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the I nternet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_tsd_expert_interview_summari es.pdf>. Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow

- up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linki ng particulate air pollution and mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “ Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow

- Up of the Harvard Six Cities S tudy from 1974 to 2009. ” Environ Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965

- 70. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A

- 4: Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a

- 4.html. Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, Bryan J. Hubbe ll, and Patrick L. Kinney. 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. ” Environ. Sci. Technol ., 42(7):2268

- 2274. Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long

- term variabil ity of the composition of the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network . CIRA Report, ISSN 0737

- 5352

- 32, Colorado State University. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Petr oleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at <http://www.reg

- markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>.4

- 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240

- R

- 00

- 003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/e pa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2002. Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of Dose

- Resp onse Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA

- SAB

- EC

- WKSHP

- 02

- 001. January. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0 05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa

- g.pdf>. U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final) . EPA/600/R

- 05/004aF

- cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. February. Available on the Internet at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordispl ay.cfm?deid=149923>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008 a . Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides

— Health Criteria (Final Report)

. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available at : < http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen

- Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Resea rch Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur

– Ecological Criteria National (F inal Report ). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R

- 08/139. December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) . EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

– RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at < http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546 >. U.S. Environment al Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R

- 09/019F. January. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?de id=218686>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration

Response Function for PM 2.5 - related Mortality . Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available on the Internet at < www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/ thresholds tsd.pdf>.4

- 32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper: SAB Review Draft

. National Center fo r Environmental Economics December . Available on the Internet at < http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE

- 0563

- 1.pdf/$file/EE

- 0563

- 1.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . EPA 240

- R

- 10

- 001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE

- 0568

- 50.pdf/$file/EE

- 0568

- 50.pdf>. U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 . Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA

- 452/R

- 11

- 011. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf>. U.S. En vironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters

. February. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa. gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012a. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

. EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Petroleum Refinerie s New Source Performance Standards Ja. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. June. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/refineries_nsps_ja_final_ria.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection A gency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Technical Support Document: Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reducing PM 2.5 Precursors from 17 sectors . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2008. Characterizing Uncertainty in Particulate Matter Benefits Using Expert Elicitation. EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 002. July. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/43B91173651AED9E8525748700 4EA6C B/$File/EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 002

- unsigned.pdf>.4

- 33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 200 0. An SAB Report on EPA ’ s White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction. EPA

- SAB

- EEAC

- 00

- 013. July. Available on the Internet at < http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/41334524148BCCD6852571A70 0516498/$File/eeacf013.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 20 04 c . Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Respon se to Agency Request on Cessation Lag. EPA

- COUNCIL

- LTR

- 05

- 001. December. Available on the Internet at < http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sa bproduct.nsf/0/39F44B098DB49F3C85257170005293E0/ $File/council_ltr_05_001.pdf >. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2008. Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990

– 2020 . EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 001. July. Availab le at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8 3/$File/EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 001

- unsigned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2009b. Review of EPA ’ s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External Review Draft, December 2008) . EPA

- COUNCIL

- 09

- 008. May. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86 e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 09

- 008

- unsi gned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2009c. Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review Draft, July 2009) . EPA

- CASAC

- 10

- 001. November. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86 e/151B1F83B023145585257678006836B9/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 10

- 001

- unsigned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 20 10a. Review of EPA ’ s DRAFT He alth Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the Clean Air Act . EPA

- COUNCIL

- 10

- 001. June. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/9288428b8eeea4c885257242006935a3/59e0 6b6c5ca66597852575e7006c5d09!OpenDocumen t&TableRow=2.3#2.>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2011. Review of Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper (December 10, 2010). EPA

- SAB

- 11

- 011 July

. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/298E1F50F844BC23852578DC0059A616/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 11

- 011

- unsigned.pdf>.5

- 1 SECTION 5 ECONOMIC IMPAC T ANALYSIS EPA prepares an EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of t he social costs of using resources to comply with a regulation (EPA, 201 0 ). The social costs can then be compared with estimated social benefits (as presented in Section 4). As noted in EPA ’ s (2010 ) Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analy ses , several tools are available to estimate social costs and range from simple direct compliance cost methods to the development of a more complex market analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) and economic welfare changes (e. g., changes in consumer and producer surplus). The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) adopted a market

- level analysis described in the Office ’ s re source manual (EPA, 1999a ). The market approach uses a single

- period static partial

- equilibrium model to compare prepolicy market baselines with expected post policy outcomes in these markets. Key measures in this analysis include

■ market

- level effects (market prices, changes in domestic production and consumption, and inter national trade) and

■ social costs and their distribution between producers and consumers

. We also assessed the impacts on employment in the brick industry through a qualitative discussion and a quantitative analysis that is linked to the results of the mark et

- level analysis. Finally, we assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of large and small ultimate parent companies that own affected BSCP facilities. To do this, we used a screening analysis required to comply with the Regulato ry Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

. 5.1 Market Analysis The partial

- equilibrium analysis includes a market model that simulates how stakeholders (consumers and firms) might respond to the additional regulatory program costs. EPA used a perfectly competitive regional market model that accounts for the fact that brick shipments are not likely to be shipped long distances because of weight and transportation costs. In regional markets, it is m ore likely that only a few firms offer similar brick products and other market structures may be applicable (i.e., oligopoly). If market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of the proposed rule. Appendix A provides additional details about the economic model equations and parameters.5

- 2 5.1.1 Market - Level Results Market

- lev el impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. As shown in Table 5

- 1 , the average national price under the proposed standard s increase s by 1.4 % , or $3.29 per 1,000 SBE , while overall domestic production falls by 1.1% , or 38 million bricks per year. These values are lower than the alternate approach: the average national price increase for the alternate standards is 2.0% and bri ck U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks.
P rice increases are the highest i n regions with high unit compliance costs. For example, the East North Central market price increase ($8.43 per 1,000 SBE ) is associated with higher per - unit compli a nce costs ($18.72 per 1,000 SBE). Under the proposed standards, one region does not include any facilities with incremental compliance costs (New England). As a result, there are no market

- level changes. For all of the census regions, t he average regional price increase s between 0% and 2.8 % . Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 2.2% and 0 to 14 million bricks per year. Under the alternate standards, the average regional price increase s between 0% and 3.9 % . Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 3.1 %, or 0 to 21 million bricks per year. 5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates Under the proposed standards, the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on $ 11.4 million (2011$) of the rule ’ s costs to U.S. h ouseholds in the form of higher prices (Table 5

- 1 ). Existing U.S. industries ’ surplus falls by $9.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $ 20.6 million. Under the alternate standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is $10 million higher ($30.5 million). Because higher br ick prices reduce consumption, the estimated compliance costs are lower than the engineering cost estimate that does not account for price responses. However, the differences are very small (i.e., less than 0.01%). 5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job creation and employment. According to the Executive Order, “ our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting e conomic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science ” (Executive Order 13563, 2011 ). Although standard benefit

- cost analy ses have not typically5-3 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Propo sed BSCP NESHAP

Census Region Incremental Unit Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE) Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:
Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Consumer Surplus Producer Surplus Total Surplus Proposed Standards New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $3.55 $1.36 0.4% −703 −0.3% −$0.3 −$0.2 −$0.5 East North Central $18.72 $8.43 2.8% −6,364 −2.2% −$2.4 −$1.9 −$4.3 West North Central $6.81 $3.79 1.4% −2,000 −1.1% −$0.7 −$0.6 −$1.2 South Atlantic $6.17 $3.15 1.4% −14,228 −1.1% −$4.1 −$3.3 −$7.4 East South Central $6.17 $3.43 1.8% −5,727 −1.5% −$1.3 −$1.1 −$2.4 West South Central $5.15 $2.86 1.2% −8,898 −1.0% −$2.5 −$2.0 −$4.6 Mountain $1.23 $0.34 0.1% −86 −0.1% $0.0 $0.0 −$0.1 Pacific $2.35 $1.11 0.2% −120 −0.2% −$0.1 −$0.1 −$0.1 U.S. Average/Total $6.55 $3.29 1.4%

− 38,126

− 1.1%

− $11.4

− $9.1

− $20.6 ( continued) Formatted Table Formatted Table

Formatted Table5-4 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP (continued)

Census Region Incremental Unit Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE) Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:
Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Consumer Surplus Producer Surplus Total Surplus Alternate Standards New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $5.39 $2.07 0.6% −1,068 −0.5% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.8 East North Central $26.19 $11.79 3.9% −8,901 −3.1% −$3.3 −$2.6 −$5.9 West North Central $10.54 $5.85 2.1% −3,093 −1.7% −$1.1 −$0.9 −$1.9 South Atlantic $8.99 $4.60 2.0% −20,743 −1.6% −$6.0 −$4.8 −$10.7 East South Central $9.13 $5.07 2.7% −8,473 −2.2% −$2.0 −$1.6 −$3.5 West South Central $7.44 $4.13 1.8% −12,854 −1.4% −$3.7 −$2.9 −$6.6 Mountain $6.05 $1.68 0.5% −424 −0.4% −$0.2 −$0.2 −$0.3 Pacific $11.02 $5.21 0.9% −563 −0.8% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.7 U.S. Average/Total $9.74 $4.90 2.0% −56,118 −1.6% −$17.0 −$13.5 −$30.5 Formatted Table Formatted Table

Formatted Table5

- 5 included a separate analysis of regulation

- induced employment impacts, 43 during periods of sustained high unemployment, employment impacts are of particular concern and questions may arise about their existence and magnitude

. This chapter provides a conceptual framework for considering the potential influence of environmental regulation on employment in the U.S. economy and discusses the limited empirical literature that is available. The chapter then discuss es the potential employment imp acts in the BSCP industry, as well as the environmental protection sector ( e.g. , for construction, manufacture, installation and operation of needed pollution control equipment )

. Section 5 .2 .1 describes the economic theory used for analyzing regulation

- induced employment impacts , discussing how standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on labor demand for regulated firms. Section 5

. 2.2 presents an overview of the peer

- reviewed literature relevan t to evaluating the effect of environmental reg ulation on employment. Section 5.2.3 discusses macroeconomic net employment effects. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on economy

- wide impacts, including employm ent effects. Section 5.2.4 addresses the particular influence of this proposed rule on employment. Finally, Section 5

. 2.5 offer s several conclusions. 5.2.1 Theory The effects of environmental regulation on employment are difficult to disentangle from other econo mic changes and business decisions that affect employment, over time and across regions and industries

. L abor markets respond to regulation in complex ways . That response depends on the elasticities of demand and supply for labor and the degree of labor ma rket imperfections (e.g. , wage stickiness, long

- term unemployment) . The unit of measurement (e.g., number of jobs, types of job hours worked, or earnings) may affect observability of that response . Net employment impacts are composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in different areas of the economy (i.e., the directly regulated sector, upstream and downstream sectors, and the pollution abatement sector) and over time. In light of these difficulties, e conomic theory provides a constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments. In this section, we briefly describe theory relevant to the impact of regulation on labor demand at the regulated firm, in the regulated industry , and in the environmental protection sector and highlight the importance of considering potential effects of regulation on labor supply, a topic addressed further in a subsequent section.

43 L a bor expenses do, however, contribute toward total costs in EPA’s standard benefit

- cost analys e s.5

- 6 Neoclassical microeconomic theory describes how profit

- maximizing firms adjust their use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions. 44 In this framework, labor is one of many inputs to production, along with capital, energy, and materials. In competitive output markets, profit

- maximizing firm s take prices as given and choose quantities of inputs and outputs to maximize profit. Factor demand at the firm, then, is determined by input and output prices. 45 , 46 Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002 ) have specifically tailored one version of the standard neoclassical model to analyze how environmental regulations affect labor demand decisions. 47 Environmental regulation is modeled as effectively requiring certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital investment, that would not be freely chosen by profit

- maximizing/cost

- minimizing firms. In Berman and Bui ’ s (2001, p. 274

– 75) theoretical model, the change in a firm ’ s labor demand arising from a change in regulation is decomposed into two main components: output and substitution effects. 48 For the output effect, by affecting the marginal cost of production, regulation affects the profit

- maximizing quantity of output. The output effect describes how, if labor intensity of production is held constant, a decrease in output generally leads to a decrease in labor demand. However, as noted by Berman and Bui, although it is often assumed that regulation increases marginal cost, and thereby reduces output, it need not be the case. A regulation could induce a firm to upgrade to less polluting and more efficient equipment that lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a case, ou tput could theoretically increase. The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the labor intensity of production. Although increased environmental regulation generally results in higher utilization of production fact ors such as pollution control equipment and energy to operate that equipment, the resulting impact on labor demand is ambiguous. For example, e quipment inspection requirements, specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that alter the

44 See Layard and Walters (1978) , a standard microeconomic theory textbook, for a discussion. 45 See Hamermesh (1993) , Chapter 2, for a derivation of the firm’s labor demand function from cost

- minimization. 46 In this framework, labor demand is a function of quantity of output and prices (of both output s and input s )

. 47 Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a cost

- minimization framework, which is a special case of profit

- maximization with fixed output quantities. 48 The authors also discuss a third co mponent, the impact of regulation on factor prices but conclude that this effect is unlikely to be important for large competitive factor markets, such as labor and capital. Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a very similar model, but they break the employment effect into three parts: 1) the demand effect, 2) the cost effect, and 3) the factor

- shift effect.5

- 7 production process may affect the number of workers necessary to produce a unit of output. Berman and Bui (2001) modeled the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on “ quasi

fixed ” pollution control equipment and expenditures t hat are required by the regulation and the corresponding change in labor intensity of production. Within the production theory framework, when levels of a given set of inputs are fixed by external constraints such as regulatory requirements, rather than al lowing the firm to freely choose all inputs under cost

- minimization alone, these inputs are described as “ quasi

- fixed. ” For example, materials would be a “ quasi

fixed ” factor if there were specific requirements for landfill liner construction, but the foot print of the landfill was flexible. Brown and Christensen (1981) developed a partial static equilibrium model of production with quasi

- fixed factors, which Berman and Bui (2001) extended to analyze environmental regulat ions with technology

- based standards. In summary, because the output and substitution effects may be both positive, both negative, or some combination, standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on labor dem and at regulated firms. Operating within the bounds of standard neoclassical theory, however, rough estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study, specific to the regulated firms, when data and methods of sufficient detail and quali ty are available. The available literature illustrates some of the difficulties for empirical estimation: studies sometimes rely on confidential plant

- level employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau, possibly combined with pollution abatement expenditure data that are too dated to be reliably informative. In addition, the most commonly used empirical methods in the literature do not permit the estimation of net effects. These studies will be discussed at greater length later in this chapter. The above de scribes a conceptual framework for analyzing potential employment effects at a particular firm within a regulated industry. It is important to emphasize that employment impacts at a particular firm will not necessarily represent impacts for the overall ind ustry; therefore, the theoretic approach requires some adjustment when applied at the industry level. As stated, the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how the output and substitution effects interact. 49 At the industry level, labor demand will be more responsive when (1) the price elasticity of demand for the product is high, (2) other factors of production can be easily substituted for labor, (3) the supply of other factors is highly elastic, or (4) lab or costs are a large share of the total costs of production. 50 So, for example, if all firms in the industry are

49 On Marshall’s laws of derived demand, see Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4. 50 See Ehrenberg an d Smith (2000), p. 108.5

- 8 faced with the same compliance costs of regulation and product demand is inelastic, then industry output may not change much at all, and output of individual firms may only be slightly changed. 51 In this case, the output effect may be small, while the substitution effect will still depend on the degree of substitutability or complementarity between factors of production. Continuing the example, if new pollution control equipment requires labor to install and operate, labor is more of a complement than a substitute. In this case, the substitution effect may be positive, and if the output effect is small or zero, the total effect may then be positive. As with the potential effects for an individual firm, theory alone is unable to determine the sign or magnitude of industry

- level regulatory effects on labor. Determining these signs and magnitudes requires additional sector

- specific empirical study. To c onduct such targeted research would require estimates of product demand elasticity; production factor substitutability; supply elasticity of production factors; and the share of total costs contributed by wages, by industry, and perhaps even by facility. F or environmental rules, many of these data items are not publicly available, would require significant time and resources to access confidential U.S. Census data for research, and also would not be necessary for other components of a typical RIA. In addit ion to changes to labor demand in the regulated industry, net employment impacts encompass changes within the environmental protection sector and, potentially, in other related sectors, as well. Environmental regulations often create increased demand for p ollution control equipment and services needed for compliance. This increased demand may increase revenue and employment in the environmental protection industry

. At the same time, the regulated industry is purchasing the equipment, and these costs may aff ect labor demand at regulated firms. Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of compliance actions on employment across multiple sectors or industries

. On the one hand, i f the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large

- scale environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on aggregate net employment. 52 Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated from one productive use to another (e.g., from producing electricity or steel to producing pollution abatement equ ipment ). Theory supports the argument that, in the case of full employment, the net national employment effects from environmental regulation are likely to be small and transitory (e.g., as workers move from one

51 This discussion draws from Berman and Bui (2001) , p. 293. 52 Full employment is a conceptual target for the economy where everyone who wants to work and is available to do so at prevailing wages is act ively employed.5

- 9 job to another)

. 53 On the other hand, if the economy is operating at less than full employment , economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or magnitude of the net impact of environmental regulation on employment; it could cause either a short

- run net increase or short

run net decrease (S chmalansee and Stavins, 2011 ). An important fundamental research question is how to accommodate unemployment as a structural feature in economic models. This feature may be important in evaluating the impact of large

- s cale regulation on employment (Smith, 2012 ). Affected sector s may experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some workers may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers. It is important to recognize that these adjustment costs can entail local labor disruptions, and although the net change in the national workforce is expected to be small, localized reductions in employment can still have negative impacts on individuals and communities just as localized increases can have positive impacts

. Although the current discussion focuses on labor demand effects, environmental regulation may a lso affect labor supply. In particular, pollution and other environmental risks may affect labor productivity 54 or employees ’ ability to work. Although there is an accompanying, and parallel, theoretical approach to examining impacts on labor supply, simila r to labor demand, it is even more difficult and complex to study labor supply empirically. There is a small, nascent empirical literature using more detailed labor and environmental data and quasi

experimental techniques that is starting to find traction on this question. These ar e described in Section 5.2.6. To summarize the discussion in this section, economic theory provides a framework for analyzing the impacts of environmental regulation on employment. The net employment effect incorporates expected employment changes (both positive and negative) in the regulated sector, the environmental protection sector, and other relevant sectors. Using economic theory, labor demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decompose d into output and substitution effects. With these potentially competing forces, under standard neoclassical theory estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study specific to the regulated firms and firms in the environmental protect ion sector and other relevant

53 Arrow et al. (1996) ; see discussion on bottom of p. 8. In practice, distributional impacts on individual workers can be important, as discussed in later paragraphs of this section. 54 For example, Graff Zivin and N eidell (2012)

.5

- 10 sectors when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. Finally, economic theory suggests that labor supply effects are also possible. In the next section, we discuss the available empirical literature. 5.2.2 C urrent State of Knowledge Based on the Peer - Reviewed Literature In the labor economics literature, an extensive body of peer - reviewed empirical work analyz es various aspects of labor demand, relying on the above theoretical framework. 55 This work focuses p r imarily on the effects of employment policies , for example, labor taxes and minimum wage. 56 In contrast, the peer - reviewed empirical literature specifically estimating employment effects of environmental regulations is very limited

. In this section, w e pres ent an overview of the latter. As discussed in the preceding section on theory, determining the direction of employment effects in regulated industries is challenging because of the complexity of the output and substitution effects. Complying with a new or more stringent regulation may require additional inputs, including labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms (and firms in other relevant industries) in their production processes. S everal empirical studie s , including Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et al

. (2002) , suggest that net employment impacts may be zero or slightly positive but small even in the regulated sector. Other research su ggests that more highly regulated counties may generate fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone , 20 02 ; Walker , 20 11 ). However, because t hese latter studies compare more regulated to less regulated counties , they overstate the net national impact of regulation to the extent that regulation causes plants to locate in one area of the country rather than another. List et al . (2003) found some evidence that this type of geograp hic relocation may be occurring. Overall , the peer

- reviewed literature does not contain evidence that environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in the long run across the whole economy. Environmental regul ations seem likely to affect the environmental protection sector earlier than the regulated industry. Rules are usually announced well in advance of their effective dates and then typically provide a period of time for firms to invest in technolog ies and p rocess changes to meet the new requirements. When a regulation is promulgated, the initial response of firms is often to order pollution control equipment and services to enable compl iance when the regulation becomes effective. This can produce a short

- ter m increase in labor demand for specialized workers within the environmental protection sector , particularly workers involved in

55 Again, see Hamermesh (1993) for a detailed treatment. 56 See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000) , Chapter 4: “ Employment Effects: Empirical Estimates ” for a concise overview.5

- 11 the design, construction, testing, installation, and operation of the new pollution control equipment required by the regulation (see Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011 ; Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna, 2008 ). Estim ates of short

- term increases in demand for specialized labor within the environmental protection sector have been prepared for several EPA regulations in the past, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (U.S. EPA, 2011b ). 5.2.3 Regulated Sector Determining the direction of net employment effects of regulation on industry is challenging. Two papers that present a formal theoretic model of the underlying profit

maximizing/cost

- minimizing problem of the firm are Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002 ) mentioned above. Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to estimate the effect on emplo yment of environmental regulations in California. Their model empirically examines how an increase in local air quality regulation affects manufacturing employment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the SCAQMD enacted some of the country ’ s most stringent air quality regulations. Using SCAQMD ’ s local air quality regulations, Berman and Bui identif ied the effect of environmental regula tions on net employment in the regulated industries. 57 In particular, they compare d changes in employment in affected plants to those in other plants in the same 4

- digit Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) industries but in regions not subject to the l ocal regulations. 58 The authors f ou nd that “ while regulations do impose large costs, they have a limited effect on employment ” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269 ). Their conclusion is that local air quality regulation “ probably increased labor demand slightly ” but that

“ the employment effects of both compliance and increased stringency are fairly precisely estimated zeros , even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included ” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269 ). 59 In their view, the limited effects likely arose because 1) the regulations applied disproportionately to capital

- intensive plants with relatively little employment, 2) the plants sold to local markets where competitors were subj ect to the same regulations (so that sales were relatively unaffected), and 3) abatement inputs served as complements to employment.

57 Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) , this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the environmental protection sector. 58 Berman and Bui include over 40 4

- digit SIC industries in their sample. 59 Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated impact of regulation on employment. This employment effect is not included in Morgenstern et al. (2002)

.5

- 12 Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) developed a similar structural approach to Berman and Bui ’ s, but their empirical application use d pollution abatement expenditures from 1979 to 1991 at the plant level, including air, water, and solid waste, to estimate net employment effects in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plast ics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in contrast to Berman and Bui (2001) , this study identifie d employment effects by examining differences in abatement expenditures rather than geographical differences in stringency. T hey conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net employment in those sectors. 5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector The long

- term effects of a regulation on the environmental protection sector , which provides goods and services that help protect the environment to the regulated sector , are difficult to assess. Employment in the industry supplying pollution control equipment or services is likely to increase with the increased demand from the reg ulated industry for increased pollution control. 60 A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (2013) shows that domestic environmental services revenues grew by 41% between 2000 and 2010. Accordin g to U.S. Department of Commerce (2010) data, by 2008, there were 119,000 environmental technology (ET) firms generating approximately $300 billion in revenues domestically, producing $43.8 billion in exports, and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in the United States . Air pollution control accounted for 18% of the domestic ET market and 16% of exports. Small and medium

size companies represent 99% of private ET firms, producing 20% of total revenue (OEEI, 2010 )

. 5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts As described above, t he small empirical literature on employment effects of environmental regulations focuses primarily on labor demand impacts. However, t here is a nascent literature focusing on regulation

- induced effects on labor supply, though this literature remains very limited because of empirical challenges. This new research uses innovative methods and new data and indicates that there may be observable impacts of environmental regulation o n labor supply, even at pollution levels below mandated regulatory thresholds. Many researchers have found that work

- loss days and sick days, as well as mortality, are reduced when air pollution is reduced (EPA, 2011 a ). EPA ’ s study of the benefits and costs of implementing the

60 See Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna (2008) , for example, and U.S. Department of Commerce (2010)

.5

- 13 clean air regulations used these studies to predict how increased labor availability would increase the labor supply and improve productivity and t he economy (EPA, 2011 a).Another literature estimates how worker productivity improves at the work site when pollution is reduced. Graff Zivin and Neidell ( 2013 ) review ed this literature, focusing on how health and hum an capital may be affected by environmental quality, particularly air pollution. In previous research , Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012) use d detailed worker

- level productivity data from 2009 and 2010, pair ed with local ozone air quality monitoring data for one large California farm growing multiple crops , with a piece

- rate payment structure. Their quasi

- experimental structure identifie d a n effect of daily variation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They f ou nd “ t hat ozone levels well below federal air quality standards have a significant impact on productivity: a 10 parts per billion (ppb) decrease in ozone concentrations increases worker productivity by 5.5 percent. ” (Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012, p. 3654 ). Such studies are a compelling start to exploring this new area of research, considering the benefits of improved air quality on productivity, alongside the existing literature exploring the labor demand effects of environmental regulations. 5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector and labor supply impacts. These challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment estimates for the whole economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, compliance spending, and environmental benefits propagate through the macro

- economy. Quantitative estimates are further complicated by the fact that ma croeconomic models often have very little sectoral detail and usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling economy - wide impacts, including employment ef fects. 5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation In 2011, the ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, b ). Approximately 12 million production labor hours were used to produce BSCP in 2011. For this analysis, EPA quantified a subset of possible types of employment e ffects associated with the regulation:

■ additional labor requirements (full

- time equivalents [FTEs]) associated with meeting the new regulation5

- 14 ■ e mpl oyment effect of facilities that may exit the BSCP industry As shown in Table 5

- 2, EPA estimates that the regulation will require an additional 133,000 labor hours per year to operate control devices, or approximately a 1.1 % increase. This is equivalent to about 64 additional FTEs. The total estimated cost of these additional labor requirements is $3.12 million per year. Table 5 - 2 . Estimated Additional Labor Requirements
Total Annual Labor Cost ($ million) Required to Operate Control Devices Total Annual Labor Hours Required to Operate Control Devices Proposed Standards $3.12 133,000 Alternate Standards $5.00 214,000

In Section 5.3, EPA estimates that the regulation may lead to one to two affected facilities exiting the BSCP industry. According the U.S. Census Bureau ( 2013 b), the average number of employees per facility in 2011 was 37 (8,000/218 = 37). As a result, we estimate 37 to 74 employees may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search for new jobs. 5.2.8 Conclusion Although EPA has quantified two types of employment effects in this RIA, deriving estimates of how this regulation will affect net employment is a difficult task, requiring consideration of labor demand in both the regulated and environmental protection sectors. E conomic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor demand in regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer

- reviewed econometric studies that use a structural approach, applicable to overall net effects in the regulated sectors, converge on the finding that such effects, whether positive or negativ e, have been small and have not affected employment in the national economy in a significant way. Effects on labor demand in the environmental protection sector seem likely to be positive. Finally, new evidence suggests that environmental regulation may im prove labor supply and productivity. 5.3 Impacts on Small Entities As mentioned above, EPA was particularly concerned about the proposed rule ’ s potential impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 employees an d thus meet the Small Business Administration ’ s (SBA ’ s) criterion for a small business in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by Formatted Table5

- 15 computing the ratio of control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). B ased on the results of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA initiated a Small Business Advisory Review pa nel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). 5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis As discussed in Section 2, EPA has identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120 ) industry and the SBA (2013 ) defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small businesses. EPA assessed how the re gulatory program may influence the profitability of ultimate parent companies by comparing pollution control costs to total sales (i.e., a “ sales ” test or cost

to

- sales ratios [CSR] ). To do this, we divided an ultimate parent company ’ s (i) total annualized compliance costs by its reported revenue:
Sales Test i = TTTTT AAAA AAAA C CC C C C i TTTTT R R i (5 .1)
As shown in Table 5

- 3, 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies had sales data available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. The table shows that 73% of all businesses and 75% of small businesses affected by the proposed standards have CSRs of under 1%. EPA estimated the rang e of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close rather than comply with the regulation. The lower and upper bounds of the range were determined as follows:

■ Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.

■ Upper bound: All ultimate par ent companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to six brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.5-16 

### Table 5 - 3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

Capit al Cost (Million $) Annual Cost (Million $) Ultimate Parent Companies with Cost - to - Sales Ratios (CSRs) a Estimated b Closures Estimated Number of Facilities

Closed Less than 1% 1% to 3% 3% to 5% 5% to 10% Greater than 10% All Businesses (n=40) Proposed Standards $58 $21 73% 15% 5% 5% 3% 3

– 6% 1

– 2
Alternate Standards $94 $31 45% 25% 15% 10% 5% 5

– 14% 2

– 6 Small Businesses (n=32) Proposed Standards $11 $5 75% 16% 3% 3% 3% 3

– 5% 1

– 2
Alternate Standards $34 $11 47% 22% 16% 9% 6% 6

– 15% 2

– 5

a The screening assessment was conducted for 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies with annual sales data available

. For small businesses, 32 of the 36 small

entities had annual sales data available. b EPA estimated a lo wer and upper bound as follows: Lower bou nd: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.; Upper bound: All ultimate parent

companies with CSR > 10%, 50 % of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25 % of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%. Formatted Table5

- 17 As shown in Table 5

- 3, 32 of the 36 small ultimate parent companies had sales data available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. All of the facilities at risk of closure were one facility companies. EPA has been informed that small and large firms may have difficulty obtaining longer

te rm financing needed to buy the control equipment and make process changes needed to comply with the proposed standards. F irms may not have cash on hand or the ability to convert assets into cash in order to make these purchases; as a result, firms would ha ve to consider other long

term financing options. Affected firms are less likely to be publicly traded and thus would be more likely to consider debt versus equity options. The additional liabilities can put firms at additional risk of closure if market conditions do not improve during the period when the rule is adopted. In addition, if creditors are concerned about existing or future market conditions in the brick industry, they may be less willing to enter a loan contract or may require higher rates o f interest than the 7 percent interest rate used to annualize the capital costs associated with the rule. EPA estimates of the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close rather than comply with the regulation may be an underestimate b ecause of the difficulty in obtaining financing at a 7 percent interest rate. The estimates might be an overestimate if the industry has become more robust by 2018 when the control must be in place. The closure estimate did not include any increase in net effects on revenue due to price increases associated with or reductions in sales attributable to the regulation. 5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis An IRFA illustrates how EPA considers the proposed rule ’ s small entity effects before a rule is fina lized and provides information about how the objectives of the rule were achieved while minimizing significant economic impacts on small entities. We provide a summary of IRFA elements; the preamble for this rule provides additional details. 5.3.2.1 Description of the Reasons Why A ctio n by the Agency is B eing Considered On May 16, 2003, under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products manufacturi ng and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for clay ceramics manufacturing. On March 13, 2007, the U .S. Court of Appeals for the District of5

- 18 Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded both sets of standards. EPA is responding to the Court ’ s vacatur and remand. 5.3.2.2 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rule The information for this IRFA elements is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule [Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291]. 5.3.2.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Ent ities Small entities that EPA anticipates being affected by the standards would include the types of manufacturers listed in Section 2 of this RIA . EPA estimates that 44 U.S. companies will be affected. EPA believes that approximately 36 of these companies meet the SBA small

entity definition of having fewer than 750 employees. 5.3.2.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance requirements of the Proposed Rule A discussion of the compliance requirements and cost s is presented in Se ction 3 of this RIA. 5.3.2.5 Identification, to the extent practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rule EPA has determined t here are no related federal rules for this source category. 5.3.2.6 Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed R ule The information for this IRFA element is contained in Section 3 of this RIA and in the preamble to the proposed rule [Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291].
EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of the BSCP proposed rule. The results of this process are discussed in Report o n EPA ’ s Planned Proposed Rule “ National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Maximum Achievable Control Technology for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing ” completed on December 6, 2013. The SBAR made several recommendations to en hance flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed rule. The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent feasible, as described below:

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take comment on the feas ibility of work practice standards for mercury and other metals.5

- 19 The discussion of work practices for mercury and other metals should clearly identify any areas where the agency believes that the data do not support work practices to allow for meaningful c omments and also discuss work practice alternatives with sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an alternative in the final rule. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emissi on limits for mercury and for non

- mercury metals, the EPA is specifically requesting comment in the proposal on the feasibility of work practice standards for non

- mercury metals and for mercury, including data to support development of work practice standa rds for non

- mercury metals and mercury in lieu of numerical emission limits.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA co

- propose both a health

- based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to propose a numer ical health

- based limit. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing a health

- based emission limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels, and other factors. Proposed rule : The EPA evaluated the data to determine if subcategories of sources were supported, including subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is proposing emission limits for mercury in two subcategories based on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA determined it was not necessary to exercise thi s discretion for all pollutants, including total non

- mercury HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits for PM or total non

- mercury metals for all tunnel kilns. The ability to c ompl y with the equivalent lb/hr total non

- mercury HA P metals limit provides additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust dryers wo uld affect emissions and control costs. Proposed rule : The proposed rule requests comment on whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

■ The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice standards for startup and shutdown. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns and is requesting comment on providing those work practice standards.

■ The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can establish that the data available to the agency represent the best

- performing sources consistent with section 112 of the CAA and relevant case law.5

- 20 Proposed rule : The tes t data for PM (the surrogate for total non

- mercury metals) showed that kilns controlled with a fabric filter

- based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the industry are controlled with a fabric filter

- based APCD. Therefore, the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the best

- performing sources with a fabric filter

- based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish that the data available to the agency represente d the best

- performing sources for mercury control. Therefore, the MACT limit for mercury is based upon the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data. 5.4 References Arrow, K.J. , M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave, R.G. Noll, P.R. Portne y, M. Russell, R. Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, and R.N. Stavins. 1996. “ Benefit

- Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation

- A Statement of Principles. ” American Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future. AEI P ress. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Benefit Cost Analysis in Environmental.AEI.1996.pdf

. Berman, E. , and L.T. M. Bui. 2001. “ Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin. ” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265

- 295. Bezdek, R.H., R. M. Wendling, and P. Diperna. 2008. “ Environmental Protection, the Economy, and Jobs: National and Regio nal Analyses. ” Journal of Environmental Management 86(1): 63

- 79. Brown, R.S., and L.R. Christensen. 1981. “ Estimating the Elasticities of Substitution in a Model of Partial Static equilibrium: An Application to U.S. Agriculture 1947 to 1974

. ” In Berndt, E.R., Field, B.C. (Eds.), Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution

. Ehrenberg, R.G., and R.S. Smith. 2000. “ Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy. ” Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Executive Order 13563. January 21, 2011. “ Impr oving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General Principles of Regulation. ” Federal Register 76(14): 3821

- 3823. Graff Zivin, J

. , and M

. Neidell. 2012. “ The Impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity. ” American Economic Review 102(7) : 3652

- 73. Gr aff Zivin, J

. , and M . Neidell. 2013

. “ Environment, Health, and Human Capital. ” Journal of Economic Literature 1 ( 3 ): 689

- 730. Greenstone, M. 2002. “ The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures. ” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175

- 1219. Hamermesh, D.S. 1993. “ Labor Demand. ” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.5

- 21 Internal Revenue Service. SOI Tax Stats

- Corporation Tax Statistics. Last up dated April 2014. http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI

- Tax

- Stats

- Corporation

- Tax

- Statistics

. Layard, P.R.G., and A.A. Walters. 1978. “ Microeconomic Theory. ” McGraw

- Hill, Inc. List, J.A. , D.L. Millimet, P. G. Fred riksson, and W. W. McHone. 2003. “ Effects of Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator. ” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944

- 952. Morgenstern, R.D., W. A. Pizer, and J

- S. Shih. 2002. “ Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry

- Level Perspective. ” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3): 412

- 436. Schmalansee, R., and R. Stavins. 2011. “ A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the Transp ort Rule. ” White Paper. Boston, MA: Exelon Corp. Smith, K. 2012. “ Reflections

– In Search of Crosswalks between Macroeconomics and Environmental Economics. ” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(2) : 298

- 317. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. April 2010

. “ Environmental Industries Fact Sheet, using 2008 data from Environmental Business International, Inc. ” http://web.ita.doc.gov/ete/eteinfo.nsf/068f3801d047f26e85256883006ffa54/4878b7e2fc0 8ac6d85256883006c452c?OpenDocument

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2011a. “ The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report

– Rev. A. ” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport_rev_a.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2011b. “ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). ” Washington, DC: U.S. Environment al Protection Agency

. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf

. U.S. International Trade Commission. March 2013. Environmental and Related Services. Publication No. 4389, Investigation No. 332

- 533. http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4389.pdf

. Walker, R. 2011. “ Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation. ” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 101(2).6

- 1 SECTION 6 STATUTORY AND EXECUT IVE ORDER REVIEWS 6.1 Synopsis This chapter summarizes the Statutory and Executive Order (EO) impact analyses relevant for the p roposed NESHAP for Bricks and Structural Clay Products . For each EO and Statutory requirement , we describe both the requirements and the way in which our analysis addresses these requirements. 6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “ significant regulatory action. ” The proposed rule qualifies as a “ significant regulatory action ” as defined by the Executive Order because it may “ raise novel legal or policy issues arising o ut of legal mandates, the President ’ s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. ” Thus, EPA has conducted this Regulatory Impact Analysis to examine the costs, benefits, and estimated impacts of the proposed rule. EPA ’ s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur total annualized costs of $21 million under the proposed rule, including costs of emissions controls, testing, and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that have testing and monit oring. Total annualized costs of the alternate approach are estimated to be $31 million. EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BASCP facilities. EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under the alternate approach, EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits o f the proposed rule , as described in Section VII above. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource, and methodol ogical limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year through the alternate standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 , this rule would reduce several non

- mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., a ntimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each6

- 2 year. The EPA estimate the total monetized co

- benefits to be $52 million to $120 million at a 3% discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the proposed standards

. Based on the EPA ’ s examination of costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed rule will exceed the costs. 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the BSCP proposed rule has been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP Manufa cturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operator s subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for whi ch a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the proposed rule includes paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5

- year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction. There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to the BSCP proposed rule. For these 67 facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 year s after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor hours per year, at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period. The annu al operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $983/yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of6

- 3 the standards) is estimated to be 103 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $5,329 p er year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because BSCP facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report, records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the BSCP proposed rule, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that t he rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration ’ s (SBA ’ s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district , or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not

- for

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the proposed BSCP NESHAP ar e small businesses that own BSCP manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry, and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in this industry as a firm with f ewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 366

- 4 parent companies that are small businesses; of these, 32 have sales data. The EPA first conducted a screening assessment by computing the ratio of estimated compliance cos ts to company sales (cost

- to

- sales ratio or CSR) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Unde r the alternate standards, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the BSCP proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is described in Section 5, above, and is summarized below. The IRFA describes the reason why the proposed rule is being considered and describes the objectiv es and legal basis of the proposed rule. The IRFA describes EPA ’ s examination of small entity effects prior to proposing a regulatory option and provides information about steps taken to minimize significant impacts on small entities while achieving the ob jectives of the rule. As described above, EPA is developing these standards in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ’ s vacatur and remand of a BSCP NESHAP promulgated in 2003. The objectives of this proposed rule are st ated in the Preambl e to the Proposed Rule . As described in Sections 2 and 5, EPA ’ s examination of data concerning the 44 owner companies owning affected BSCP facilities revealed that 36 of them meet the SBA small

- entity definition of having fewer than 750 employees. The EPA summarized the regulatory requirements and cost sof the propose drule in Section 3 of this RIA, including the proposed standards and alternate standards. EPA ’ s analysis has determined that there are no related federal rules for this sou rce category. Section 5 of this RIA describes the RFA/SBREFA analysis, the results of which are summarized above. As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business A dvocacy Review Panel, to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the BSCP proposed rule ’ s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick manufacturing participated. On June 26, 201 3, the SBAR Panel held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the materials that the SERs received for the pre - Panel outreach, the SERs were provided with background information to help them prepare for the teleconference and prep are their comments on the proposed rulemaking. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small

- entity6

- 5 comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the docke t for the BSCP proposed rule. (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291) The SBAR Panel made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed rule. In response to each recommendation, EPA has developed the rule to a ccept the recommendation to the extent possible. Specific procedures incorporated into the proposed rule in response to the panel ’ s recommendations are presented in Section 5. 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local , and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year . EPA estimates that the nationwide total annual cost of the proposed rule, including control, emissions testing, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, will be $21 million. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local , or tribal governments. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA

. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments . I t contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose obligations on them. 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in E O 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned and operated by state governments, and, nothing in the proposed rule will supersede state regulations. Thus, E O 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA ’ s policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with I ndian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specifi ed in EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indi an tribes, or no the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in EO 13175. The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments.6

- 6 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis requi red under section 5

- 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 , dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals, which will provide some increased protection of health for people of all ages including children. 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “ significant energy action ” as defined in E O 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule will not adversely directl y affect productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector. 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA ) Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104

- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 not e), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifica tions, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
a pplicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards . The EPA proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19

- 10

- 1981, Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas A nalyses,” is acceptable as an al ternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcini ng Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method ,” is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.6

- 7 ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired Stationary Sources (O ntario Hydro Method) ,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).
ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010), “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy ,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) t he test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348

- 03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) i n ASTM D6348

- 03 Annex A 5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A 5

. 5 ). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte ( i.e. , the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R. 6.11 Executive Ord er 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations E O 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, t o the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies , and activities on minority populations and low

income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority , low

- income , or indigen ous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority , low

- income , or i ndigenous population
. This proposed rule establishes national standards that will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, CL 2 , dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus, the proposed rule is projected to have positive, not adverse , impacts on human health and the environment.7

- 1 SECTION 7 COMPARISON OF BENEFI TS AND COSTS 7.1 Introduction The EPA compared the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 (Section 4) with the estimated annualized social costs (Section 5) and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely higher since EPA was not able to monetize other environmental benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year and ecosystem effects and visibility impairment associated with PM emissions. 7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monet ized benefits of the proposed standards to be $52 million to $120 m illion (Table 7

- 1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $47 million to $110 million. The annualized costs are $21 million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate. 7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed standards to be $78 million to $180 mil lion (Table 7

- 1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160 million. The annualized costs are $31 million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount rate.7

- 2 Table 7 - 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Socia l Costs, and Net Benefits (million 2011$)
Total (3% Discount Rate) Total (7% Discount Rate) Proposed Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $52 to $120 $47 to $110 Total Social Costs a $21 Net Benefits $31 to $99 $26 to $89 Alternate Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $78 to $18 0 $70 to $16 0 Total Social Costs a $31 Net Benefits $47 to $14 9 $39 to $129

a The methodology uses the estimate social costs from the baseline year of economic model. As a result, the same

value of social costs is used for both discount rates. Formatted TableA

- 1 APPENDIX A ECONOMIC MODEL A.1 Baseline Data for Economic Model Table A - 1 . Affected Production Statistics by Census Region

Census Region 1,000 S.B.E Shipped in 2010 Estimated Affected Production Share within Region a East North Central 285,508 81% East South Central 388,685 100% Mid

- Atlantic 213,583 69% Mountain 114,154 5 0 % New England 37,034 0% Pacific 74,563 85% South Atlantic 1,307,601 92% West North Central 183,247 100% West South Central 891,232 100% United States 3,495,657 90%

a To approximate the affected shares, EPA estimated affected production from kiln capacity and operating hours of

major sources. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations. Table A - 2 . Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E. Expressed in 2010 dollars $ per 1,000 S.B.E. Expressed in 2011 dollars New England $379 $387 Middle Atlantic $324 $331 East North Central $297 $302 West North Central $272 $277 South Atlantic $227 $232 East South Central $183 $186 West South Central $225 $229 Mountain $355 $362 Pacific $541 $551 United States $248 $253 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Prices adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product

(GDP). Formatted Table

Formatted TableA

- 2 A.2 Model Equations Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high relative to value. For this reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represe nted only a small fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 ). 61 Approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS is less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the average price of brick products shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for brick. As a result, we use a perfectly competitive partial equilibrium model with nine regional brick markets (defined by census region). The market demand (D) in region (r) with regulation is : Q DD

′ = Q DD × � 1 + � P ′

− 1 � × η � (A.1 )
The affected market supply (SA) in region (r) with regulation is : Q S

′ = Q S × � 1 + � � P ′

− �

− 1 � × ε � (A.2 )
The unaffected market supply (SU) in region (r) with regulation is : Q SS

′ = Q SS × � 1 + � P ′

− 1 � × ε � (A.3 )
At the new with

- regulation market

- clearing price, quantities in A.1, A.2, and A.3 satisfy the following market equilibrium condition for each region (r) : Q DD

′ = Q S ′ + Q SS ′ (A.3 ) As reported in Section 2, a single parent company accounts for a majority of estimated
census region production. As a result, the price

- taking model of firm decisions may not describe business decisions as well as other economic m odels of pricing behavior (i.e., oligopoly)

. If

61 The data include other product s such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.A

- 3 market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of the proposed rule. A.3 Model Parameters A.3.1 Demand All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer brick and structural clay products when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response. 62 Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers can easily switch from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versu s years). Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities for brick and structural clay products. However, economy

- wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral industry demand elasticity is approximately −0. 8. As are result, a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decline in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008 ). Because the market definition for the product is broad, the price response for brick and struc tural clay products is likely more elastic than this value

. A.3.2 Supply All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bri cks supplied responds to changes in the brick price. 63 If manufacturers have a significant amount of flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produce d and supplied only changes by small amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.
A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, i t is more difficult for the firm to adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford ( 2002) develop ed an equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed

62 The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percent age change in price. 63 The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.A

- 4 factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period 64 and the other input that varies with production

. Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × 

### share ue factor val fixed share ue factor val fixed 1

− (A.4)
To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 5 0% to approximately match the nonlabor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity is 1 (a Cobb

- Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares . If we assume the elasticity of substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is Supply Elasticity = 1 × 5

. 0 5

. 0 1

− = 1 (A.5) Using these values for the f ixed factor ’ s value share and elasticity of substitution, the supply elasticity is approximately one . This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick manufacturers would plan to sell 1 % more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity utilizati on rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. A. 4 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer Surplus In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in consumer and producer surplus. These values can be approximated using the mark et supply and demand model (Figure A

- 1).

64 The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include materia ls or labor.A

- 5 Figure A - 1. Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer Surplus Change in consumer surplus =

– [fghd + dhc] Change in producer surplus = [fghd

– aehb]

– bdc Change in total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus =

– [aehb + dhc + bdc] T he change in consumer surplus is measured as follows :
∆

CS = – [ ∆ Q 1 × ∆ p ] + [ 0.5 × ∆ Q × ∆ p ]

. (A.6 )
H igher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses. For affected supply, the change in producer surplus is measured as follows :
∆

PS = [ Q 1 × ∆ p ]

– [ Q 1 × unit cost increase]

– [ 0.5 × ∆ Q × ( ∆ p

– unit cost increase ) ]

. (A.7 ) Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus

. The losses are offset to some degree because market prices tend to rise. In contrast, for unaffected supply, the change in producer surplus is :
∆ PS = [ Q 0 × ∆ p ] + [ 0.5 × ∆ Q × ∆ p ]

. (A.8 ) Higher prices increase producer surplus for unaffected producers in the U.S. and other countries. Q 1 Q 0 P 1
P 0 h

c

a $

Output e d S 1 : With Regulation

S 0 : Without Regulation Price Increase } Unit Cost Increase 

# } g

f b

# Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP

U

. S

. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Air Economics Group (MD

- C339

- 01) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

July 2014 Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291

### CONTACT INFORMATION This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this docum ent should be addressed to Tom Walton , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (email: walton.tom@epa.gov ).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Personnel from RTI International and K apur Energy Environmental Economics, LLC contributed significant data, analysis, and writing to this document under contract number EP

- W

11

- 029.

### iii CONTENTS
Section Page Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. ES

- 1
Section 1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1

- 1 1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 1 1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 2 1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

................................ .. 1

- 2 1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure

................. 1

- 2 1.3 Organization o f the Report

................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 3 Section 2 Profile of the Affected Industry

................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 1 2.1 Overview of Current Conditions

................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 1 2.2 Supply

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 2 2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide?

.............................. 2

- 2 2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply?

................................ ................. 2

- 3 2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity Supplied?

................................ ................................ ...... 2

- 3 2.3 Demand

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 4 2.3.1 Who Uses Brick?

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 5 2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand?

................................ ......... 2

- 5 2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded?

................................ ................................ ............... 2

- 6 2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry

................................ ....................... 2

- 6 2.4.1 Market Defin ition

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 6 2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior

................................ ................................ .............. 2

- 7 2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies

................................ 2

- 8 2.5 Market Data and Trends

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 11 2.5.1 Market Prices

................................ ................................ ......................... 2

- 20

### iv 2.6 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 21 Section 3 Engineering Cost Analysis

................................ ................................ ..................... 3

- 1 3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach

................................ ........ 3

- 1 3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device

................................ ................................ . 3

- 4 3.3 Summary of Results

................................ ................................ ............................. 3

- 6
Section 4 Human Health Benefits of Emissions Reductions

................................ ................. 4

- 1 4.1 PM 2.5 

### - Related Human Health Co

- Benefits

................................ .......................... 4

- 1 4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment

................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 2 4.1.2 Economic Valuation

................................ ................................ ................. 4

- 5 4.1.3 Benefit

- per - ton Estimates

................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 7 4.1.4 PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits Results

................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 8 4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4

- 11 4.2 Unquantified Benefits

................................ ................................ ........................ 4

- 15 4.2.1 HAP Benefits

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 16 4.2.2 Additional SO 2 

### Health Co

- Benefits

................................ ....................... 4

- 27 4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co

- Benefits

................................ ........................ 4

- 28 4.3 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 28 Section 5 Economic Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 1 5.1 Market Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

- 1 5.1.1 Market

- Level Results

................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 2 5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ............... 5

- 2 5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule

................................ ......................... 5

- 2 5.2.1 Theory

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 5 5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer

- Reviewed Literature

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

- 10 5.2.3 Regulated Sector

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 11 5.2. 4 Environmental Protection Sector

................................ ........................... 5

- 12 5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts

................................ ................................ ............ 5

- 12 5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects

................................ ............. 5

- 13 5.2.7 Informat ion Specific to this Regulation

................................ ................. 5

- 13

### v 5.2.8 Conclusion

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 14 5.3 Impacts on Small Entities

................................ ................................ .................. 5

- 14 5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis

................................ ........... 5

- 15 5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

................................ ................... 5

- 17 5.4 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 5

- 20 Section 6 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

................................ ................................ 6

- 1 6.1 Synopsis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6

- 1 6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

............................. 6

- 1 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act

................................ ................................ .................... 6

- 2 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act

................................ ................................ ................... 6

- 3 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

................................ ......................... 6

- 5 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

................................ ................................ .... 6

- 5 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation an d Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6

- 5 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risk s and Safety Risks

................................ ................................ ............. 6

- 6 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

................................ .... 6

- 6 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

....................... 6

- 6 6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

................................ ....... 6

- 7 Section 7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs

................................ ................................ ......... 7

- 1 7.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7

- 1 7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards

................................ ............................... 7

- 1 7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards

................................ ............................... 7

- 1

### vi Appendixes A Economic Model

................................ ................................ ................................ . A

- 1

### vii LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page 2

- 1 Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327)

........................ 2

- 2 2

- 2 Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products

................................ ......... 2

- 21
4

- 1 Total Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co

- Benefits of Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4

- 10 4

- 2 Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### Exposure in the Baseline

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4

- 15 4

- 3 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### Exposure in the Baseline

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

- 16 4

- 4 Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 4

- 18 4

- 5 Estimated Chronic Census Tract Noncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)

................................ ........................... 4

- 19

### viii LIST OF TABLES
Number Page 2

- 1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2

- 7 2

- 2. Market Share Statistics

................................ ................................ ................................ . 2

- 8 2

- 3. Production Statistics by Census Region

................................ ................................ ....... 2

- 9 2

- 4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

................................ .................... 2

- 10 2

- 5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993

– 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 12 2

- 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt G lazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

- 14 2

- 7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993

– 2010

.... 2

- 17 2

- 8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010

......... 2

- 20 2

- 9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 20
3

- 1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

................................ ............ 3

- 3 3

- 2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 milli on USD)

................................ ........ 3

- 4 3

- 3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

.............. 3

- 5 3

- 4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD)

.................... 3

- 7
4

- 1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5

................................ ................................ .... 4

- 3 4

- 2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2

- Related Health Co

Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a

.............. 4

- 9 4

- 3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2

- Related Co

- Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a

..................... 4

- 9 4

- 4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a

................................ ...... 4

- 10 4

- 5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa

................................ ............. 4

- 14
5

- 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP

................................ ............. 5

- 3 5

- 2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements

................................ ................................ . 5

- 14 5

- 3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

......... 5

- 16
7

- 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 2011$)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7

- 2

### ix

### ES

- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Background T he U.S. Environment Protection Agency ( EPA ) is proposing that all major sources in Brick and S tructural C la y P roducts Manufacturing category meet health

- based standards for acid gas hazardous air pollutants; maximum achievable control technology standards for mercury,
non - mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (or particulate matter surrogate), and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only); and work prac tice standards, where applicable. The proposed rules would protect air quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of the hazardous air pollutants listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As part of the regulatory process, EPA is require d to perform economic analysis and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) discusses the benefits and costs of the proposed rule

. ES.2 Results For the proposed rule, the key results of the RIA follow:

■ 

### Engineering Cost Analysis : EPA estimates the total annualized costs (2011$) for two compliance options:

– Proposed Standards : $21 Million

– Alternate Standards : $ 31 million

■ 

### Benefits Analysis : The EPA monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5

.



### – Proposed Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed standards to be $52 million to $120 million. Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $ 47 million to $110 million

.

– Alter nate Standards: Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the alternate standards to be $78 million to $180 million . Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160 million. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year for the alternate standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 

### , this rule would reduce several non - mercury HAP m etals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.

### ES

- 2 ■ 

### Market Analysis and Closure Estimates : Market

- level impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. T he average national price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4%, or $3.29 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1.1%, or 38 million bricks per year. These values are lower than the alternate considered: the average national pr ice increase for the alternate standards is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick production falls by about 55 million bricks. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alte rnate standards EPA estimated that two to six brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

■ 

### Social Cost Analysis : Under the proposed standards , the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on $11.4 million (2011$) of t he rule ’ s costs to U.S. household s in the form of higher prices. Existing U.S. industries ’ surplus falls by $9.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $20.6 million. Under the alternate standards , total U.S. economic surplus loss is about $10 million higher ($30.5 million).

■ 

### Comparison of Benefits and Costs : The estimated monetized human health benefits outweigh the social costs
.

– Proposed Standards: The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate.

– Alternate Standards: The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount rate.

■ 

### Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis : E PA was particularly concerned about the proposed rule ’ s potential impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 employees and thus meet the Small Business Administration ’ s (SBA ’ s) criterion for a small busines s in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by computing the ratio of control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to c ertify that the rule will not have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). ES.3 Organizatio n of this Report The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Section 1 provides an introduction, Section 2 presents the industry profile, Section 3 describes engineering cost analysis, Section 4 presents the benefits an alysis, Section 5 presents market, employment impact, social cost, and small business impact analyses, Section 6 address statutory and Executive Order requirements, and Section 7 provides a summary of benefits and c ost s.

### 1

- 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background for the Proposed Rule The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Bricks and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) industry. This rulemaking will establish emission limits for hazardous air pollutants (HF, HC l and metals) emitted from affected BSCP kilns. The BSCP industry primarily includes facilities that manufacture brick, clay, pipe, roof tile, extruded floor and wall tile, and other extruded dimensional clay products from clay, shale, or a combination of the two. The manufacturing of brick and structural clay products involves mining, raw material processing (crushing, grinding, and screening), mixing, forming, cutting or sh aping, drying, and firing. Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to set emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously determined that the clay products manufacturing industry may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CA A), as amended in 1990. As a consequence, clay products manufacturing was included in the initial list of HAP

- emitting categories published July 16, 1992, in the Federal Register and included in the draft schedule for the promulgation of emissions standard s published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1992. While conducting work on the clay products manufacturing source category under Task Order (TO) Nos. 10 and 30 of EPA Contract No. 68

- D6

- 0012, it was determined that separate national emissions stan dards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) should be developed for brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing. The NESHAP for BSCP manufacturing was promulgated on February 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register (See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003) )

. As a result of judicial review, the standards were subsequently vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit due to issues associated with the methodology used to determine t he minimum regulatory “ floors ” for new and existing units . (See Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d 875, 876 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, EPA is proposing new standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manuf acturing. . This Regulatory Impact Analysis examines the estimated costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule.

### 1

- 2 1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action 1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on BSCP facilities and considering Sierra Club v EPA decision, that emissions standards are needed for several pollutants emitted by BSCP facilities. To ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, EPA must ensure that emissions of HAP an d other pollutants from BSCP are limited. EPA is proposing MACT technology

- based standards for mercury and non

- mercury metal HAP (or PM surrogate), and is proposing health

- based standards for acid

- gas HAP (HF, HCl, and Cl 2 

### ). The proposed rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO 2 

### , which is a precursor to formation of ambient PM 2.5 

### . Therefore

, 

### reducing these emissions would also reduce human exposure to ambient PM 2.5 

### and the incidence of PM 2.5 

### - related health effects. Thus, the pr oposed rule is expected to reduce human morbidity and premature mortality due to exposure to PM 2.5 

### , in addition to providing human health and ecosystem benefits due to reduced emissions of HAP, and improved visibility due to reduced PM levels. 1.2.2 Need for Reg ulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure In general, regulatory intervention is required only when markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. For markets to allocate resources efficiently, both buyers and sellers must have access to full informa tion about the transaction; there must be many buyers and sellers so that neither buyers nor sellers have power to control prices; and the market must impose all the social costs of the transaction on the buyers and sellers in the market. In some situation s, however, these conditions do not occur, and markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. One such market failure occurs in cases where a production or consumption activity imposes an external cost on members of society who are neither buyers nor sell ers in the market for the good or service produced. In cases of external costs, or “ externalities, ” some costs are imposed on members of society who are not part of the market. Because the market is not affected by these costs, it fails to account for thes e costs and thus does not allocate resources efficiently, and government must intervene to make the outcome more efficient. Environmental pollution that results from a production process is an example of an external cost borne by members of society who are neither producers nor consumers of the good whose production is generating the pollution. In the case of bricks and structural clay products , manufacturing processes result in air emissions that impose external costs on individuals located near BSCP facil ities who are exposed to the HAP emitted by the processes. Because these costs are borne by exposed individuals rather than by the BSCP manufacturers, they are not considered by manufacturers in their production

### 1

- 3 decisions. As a result, BSCP manufacturers p roduce more, and emit more pollutants, than they would if they bore the costs of the air pollution they generate. Because the market does not provide a signal that properly limits the quantity of air pollutants emitted by BSCP manufacturers, a market failu re exists that requires EPA to promulgate air pollution standards to limit their emissions. 1.3 Organization of the Report The remainder of this economic analysis is organized as follows:

■ 

### Section 2 presents a profile of the bricks and structural clay products industry.

■ 

### Section 3 describes the proposed rule and the estimated costs of complying with it.

■ 

### Section 4 presents a qualitative discussion of the benefits of the proposed rule.

■ 

### Section 5 describes the estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule.

■ 

### Section 6 describes analyses EPA conducted to assess requirements of statutes and Executive Orders.

■ 

### Section 7 presents EPA ’ s provides a summary of benefits and c ost s.

### 2

- 1 SECTION 2 PROFILE OF THE AFFEC TED INDUSTRY Residential and commercial construction activities rely on bricks and structural clay materials. Most bricks are used as primary and secondary exterior wall materials, while other structural clay products are used in plumbing systems and roofing applicatio ns. Because over 80% of brick sales are associated with residential construction (Brick Industry Association, 2013a ), trends in the industry are influenced by trends in residential construction markets. 2.1 Overview of Current Conditions To provide a general overview of current conditions in the affected industry, we used the U.S. government ’ s official measures reported in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), County Business Patterns, and Current Industrial Reports

. Because the latest year of data (2011) differs from historical industry trends, it is unclear whether the industry without the proposed rule would be similar to the industry today. As a result, the profile provides information on a range of factors that may influence how the brick

- related markets may evolve. Federal statistical agencies classify business establishments in this industry using two North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes: 1



### ■ 

### 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing

■ 

### 327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing In 2011, the value of products shipped in the two industries was approximately $1.1 billion. Nearly all of the value was centered in NAICS 327121. The ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a,b ). During 2011, approximately 3 to 4 billion Standard Brick Equivalents (S.B.E.) 2 

### were produced by the industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 ). Federal Reserve data and industry surveys suggest the capacity utilization r ate for the brick industry is below 50% ( Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , 2013 ; Brick Industry Association, 2013b ) (see Figure 2

- 1). The current observed conditions ar e influenced by the recent steep declines in the residential

1 

### In 2012, these industries were classified under NAICS 32710 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing

. See http://www.census.gov/cgi

- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=327120&search=2012

. 2 

### This is a common unit that accounts for various sizes of brick products. It measures 3

- 5/8 ′′ x 2

- 1/4 ′′” x 7

- 5/8 ′′.

### 2

- 2 Figure 2 - 1. Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327) Source: Federal Reserve Board, 2013 

### construction market. For example, 2011 new privately owned housing starts (608,800) units are well below levels observed in 2000 (1.6 million) and 1990 (1.2 million) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013c ). Since 2010, new residential housing sta rts have begun to grow again, but levels are still much lower than the previous two decades. New privately owned housing starts in July 2013 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 852,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013d ). 2.2 Supply To better understand the markets for affected products, we consider ed the group of sellers that provide goods to the market and common factors that influence supply (e.g., input prices) and quantity of goods supplied (e.g., output prices). 2.2.1 What Typ es of Products Does the Industry Provide? The U.S. Current Industrial Report provides descriptions of the types of clay construction goods supplied to U.S. and international markets. They include

■ 

### brick (building or common and face);

■ 

### structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed;

■ 

### vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings; and

### 2

- 3 ■ 

### structural clay tile (except facing)

. Bricks are the primary good produced in terms of value and physical quantities and include face brick, paving brick, building brick, and thin brick. Face brick accounts for over 90% of brick shipments. 2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply ? The manufacturing process for brick and structural clay goods includes raw material processing (mining, grinding, screening, and blen ding) followed by forming, cutting, or shaping; drying; firing; cooling; and storage (U.S. EPA, 1997 ). Census data for NAICS 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing suggest that 70% of the product ’ s value is associated wi th value

- added activities (i.e., labo r and capital earnings ). During the last 5 years, labor costs have remained flat in the nonmetallic mineral products sector . The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that average annual hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) of all employees was about $20 per hour (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a,b ). The value of intermediate goods used in these processes (i.e., raw materials like clay and shale) make up the remaining 30% of the industry ’ s total product value (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a ). Intermediate production costs can be influenced by changes in raw clay material prices, but the prices of these materials have not fluctuated recently. Since 2008, common clay prices (primarily used in brick) have remained steady at $12 per ton. The U .S. Geological Survey (U SGS ) notes that brick companies often consider sources of raw materials when considering purchasing other companies. For e xample, the Belden Brick Co. purchase of Lawrenceville Brick Inc. included Lawrenceville Brick ’ s clay reserves (USGS, 201 1 ). 2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity Supplied? All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks supplied responds to changes in the brick price. 3 

### If manufacturers have a significant amount of flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

3 

### The measure is computed as the percentage change in quanti ty supplied divided by the percentage change in price.

### 2

- 4 A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford ( 2002) develop ed an equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period 4 

### and the other input that varies with production

. Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × 

### share ue factor val fixed share ue factor val fixed 1

−

. To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 5 0% to approximately match the non - labor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases
w here we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity is 1 (a Cobb

- Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shar es . If we assume the elasticity of substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is Supply Elasticity = 1 × 

## 5

. 0 5

. 0 1

− = 1

. Using these values for the fixed factor ’ s value share and elasticity of substitution, the supply elasticity is approximately one . This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick manufacturers would plan to sell 1 % more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value m ay underestimate how responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 2.3 Demand Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) are primarily used in residential and commercial construction applications and are influenced by overall macroeconomic trends and conditions in the residential housing industry. Facing bricks are used in overall building structures (e.g., exterior walls), while clay pipe; structural clay tile; and drain, sewer, and roof tiles are used in elements of the building structure such as plumbing systems, fireplaces, and

4 

### The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include materials or labor.

### 2

- 5 roofs. Because the vast majority of affected products are brick products and available data for other structural clay products are more limited, we focus on brick demand characteristics. 2.3.1 Who Uses Brick ? According to the Brick Industry Association, the vast majority of affected brick products
are sold for residential end uses and nonresidential build ing uses (Brick Industry Association, 2013b ). The pattern of shipments varies by brick type: approximately half of the industry shipments go to dealers or distributors who sell the products to final consumers and t he other half is sold directly to end users like construction companies (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). Over half of the shipments flow to two census regions (South Atlantic and West South Central), and Texas is the largest consumer of face brick and paver shipments (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). 2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand ? BSCP have a variety of characteristics desirable in building materials. According to the Brick Industry Association , bri ck ’ s desirable attributes include its durability, flexibility, resistance to fire, weather, and pests; and little required maintenance. (Brick Industry Association, 2013a) A recent National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) survey of buyers of new homes f ound that “ To get brick, respondents reported they would add $7,500 in additional costs ” (NAHB, 2013 ). 2.3.2.1 Price of Related Goods In exterior wall applications, vinyl siding, stone, stucco, wood, and fiber cement are substitute building mate rials. Historically, brick has maintained a 25% market share in the exterior wall application market (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). A recent NAHB survey found that “ On a national level, respondents ranked brick highest at 34 percent, vinyl siding at 21 percent, stone at 16 percent, stucco at 12 percent, wood at 7 percent and fiber cement at 5 percent ” (NAHB, 2013 ). 2.3.2.2 Income Homeowners purchasing more expensive homes are more likely to choose brick exteriors. A recent NAHB survey found that “ Ranked by price point [sale price of the home] , brick topped other home exteriors in the $150,000

– $499,000 range, while vinyl was preferred in the $150,000 or less range; brick ranked second to stone in the $500,000+ range with stucco following in t hird place ” (NAHB, 2013 ). This suggests demand for brick exterior is likely influence d by income levels.

### 2

- 6 2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded? All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer BSCP when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response. 5 

### Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers can easily switch from one product to another beca use there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus years). Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities of demand for BSCP . However, economy

- wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8 , a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decli ne in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008 ). Because the market definition for the product is broad, the price response for BSCP is likely more elastic than this value

. 2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry 2.4.1 Market Definition Market definition boundaries are commonly defined in two dimensions: product substitution and geography. Based on product substitution characteristics and available data, we rely on the Census definitions to defin e three groups of markets in which buyers are more likely to view products as substitutes:

■ 

### Brick

– Brick (building or common and face)

■ 

### Other Structural Clay Products

– Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed

– Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings

■ 

### Other Clay Structural, Floor, and Wall Tile

– Structural clay tile (except facing) Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high, relative to value. For this reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of

5 

### The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity deman ded divided by the percentage change in price.

### 2

- 7 nonmetallic mineral product s were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 ). 6 

### As shown in Table 2

- 1, approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS 327 is less than 50 miles. A comparison o f Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the average price of brick products shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for b rick. Table 2 - 1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 ( N onmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturin g)

Distance Shipped 2007 Value (million $) 2007 Tons (thousands) Share of Total Tons Total 124,713 1,060,926

---- Less than 50 miles 53,721 796,412 75.1% 50

– 99 miles 12,351 82,342 7.8% 100

– 249 miles 21,760 113,384 10.7% 250

– 499 miles 15,117 39,645 3.7% 500

– 749 miles 8,495 16,040 1.5% 750

– 999 miles 4,872 6,039 0.6% 1,000

– 1,499 miles 3,790 4,722 0.4% 1,500

– 2,000 miles 2,364 1,344 0.1% More than 2,000 miles 2,246 998 0.1% Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Table 15. 

### 2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior Economists have developed a system for grouping markets that helps describe the pricing behavior of firm s . At one end of the spectrum, firms have little control over pricing for their products. Put another way, firms are price takers, and price is determined by supply and demand conditions. This basic model is more likely to hold when the industry has a large number of sellers, goods are identical, and barriers for entry and exit (laws, high capital requirements, or patents) are low. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a single firm that searches for the price

- output combination that maximizes its profit. This basic model is more likely to hold when there are significant barriers to entry (industries with economies of scale or ownership of a patent).

6 

### The data include other product s such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.

### 2

- 8 When markets have a small number of firms selling identical products, firms may not necessarily be p rice takers; instead, they may be able to determine their price while considering how competitors may respond to their own decisions . To assess the extent to which affected markets may be concentrated among a small number of sellers, we compiled and estimated national and regional market share statistics using historical kiln survey data. Across the United States, a large number of companies (50 companies) own and operate over 200 kilns. The largest U.S. market share for a U.S. company is low (about 1 6%). This is consistent with the latest 5

- year Census statistics describing U.S. concentration at the 6

- digit NAICS code level, which found that both affected industries are well below levels that government agencies consider moderately concentrated (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 e ). As Table 2

- 2 indicates, l ooking within regions, the New England region has only two operating companies, while the South Atlantic region has 17. In several Census regions, a single parent company acc ounts for a majority of estimated regional production. To the extent that brick product markets are defined at the regional level versus national level , the price

- taking model of firm decisions may not describe business decisions as well as other economic models of pricing behavior. Table 2 - 2. Market Share Statistics

Census Region Number of Companies Maximum Company Share of Region Production East North Central 

### 12 38% East South Central 

### 9 49% Mid

- Atlantic 

### 5 66% Mountain 

### 6 48% New England 

### 2 NA Pacific 

### 4 40% South Atlantic 

### 17 26% West North Central 

### 9 31% West South Central 

### 5 52% Source: U.S. EPA calculations. 

### 2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies Based on historical kiln inventory survey data, over 13 million tons of BSCP are produced by the industry , which includes over 200 major and area source kilns. EPA has

### 2

- 9 identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. The companies own 86 faciliti es and operate 172 kilns (see Table 2

- 3) . The South Atlantic region accounts for a significant share of existing production capacity; 25 facilities and 57 kilns are operated in this region. Table 2 - 3. Production Statistics by Census Region

Census Region T otal S.B.E Shipped in 2010 (1000s) Number of Affected Kilns Number of Affected Facilities Estimated Affected Production Share

within Region East North Central 285,508 29 10 81% East South Central 388,685 28 14 100% Mid

- Atlantic 213,583 8 5 69% Mountain 114,154 4 3 5 0 % New England 37,034 0 0 0% Pacific 74,563 6 4 85% South Atlantic 1,307,601 57 25 92% West North Central 183,247 15 11 100% West South Central 891,232 25 14 100% United States 3, 495,607 172 8 6 90% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations. 

### 2.4.3.1 Small Businesses The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires federal departments and agencies to evaluate if and/or how their regulations affect small business entities. Specifically, the Agency must determine if a regulation is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizat ions, and small governmental jurisdictions. The business is defined as the owner company, rather than the facility; the size of the owner company determines the resources it has available to comply with the rule. Affected parent companies fall under the Cl ay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry , and the Small Business Administration (SBA) (2013 ) defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small bus inesses (see Table 2

- 4).

### 2

- 10 Table 2 - 4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

Company ICR NAICS Affected Facilities Affected Kilns Sales (million $) Employment Small Acme Brick Company 327121 11 19 260.1 2,602 No American Eagle Brick Co. 327121 1 1 NA NA Yes Belden Brick Company 327121 2 11 87.5 751 No Boral Bricks Inc. 327121 11 20 3,922.0 14,740 No Certainteed Corporation 327123 1 1 1,330.8 Over 10,000 No Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. 327121 1 4 43.5 175 Yes Columbus Brick Co. 327121 1 3 4.9 50 Yes Commercial Brick Corp. 327121 1 3 17.5 175 Yes Continental Brick Co. 327121 1 2 15.0 75 Yes Cunningham Brick Company, Inc. 327121 2 2 18.5 134 Yes Elgin

- Butler Brick Co. 327122 1 2 2.7 30 Yes Endicott Clay Products Co. 327122 1 3 23.4 180 Yes General Finance, Inc. 327121 1 1 212.2 229 Yes General Shale Brick, Inc. 327121 6 16 285.4 1,900 No Glen Gery 327121 6 10 83.3 N/A No Hanson Brick East, LLC 327121 9 15 51.2 1,021 No Hebron Brick Company 327121 1 1 NA 55 Yes Henry Brick Company, Inc. 327121 1 2 5.3 60 Yes International Chimney Corp. 327121 1 1 27.9 250 Yes Ironrock Capital (formerly Metropolitan Ceramics, Inc.) 327122 1 4 NA 175 Yes Kansas Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 3.5 35 Yes Kasten Clay Products Co. 327121 1 1 3.8 42 Yes L.P. McNear Brick Co, Inc. 327121 1 1 11.0 75 Yes Lee Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 4 35.0 175 Yes Logan Clay Products 327123 0 0 13.5 175 Yes Marion Ceramics, Inc. 327123 1 1 5.3 75 Yes McAvoy Brick Co. 327121 1 1 1.8 7 Yes Mohawk Industries 327122 2 5 5,788.0 NA No Mutual Materials Co. 327121 & 327123 2 2 7.5 35 Yes Old Virginia Brick Co. 327121 2 3 22.1 175 Yes (continued)

### 2

- 11 Table 2 - 4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities (continued)

Company ICR NAICS Affected Facilities Affected Kilns Sales (Million $) Employment Small Pacific Clay Products 327121 1 3 27.2 175 Yes Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc. 327121 1 6 30.2 35 Yes Ragland Clay Products, LLC 327121 1 1 1.9 35 Yes Richards Brick Co. 327121 1 2 18.1 75 Yes Sioux City Brick and Tile Co. 327121 2 3 7.5 35 Yes Statesville Brick Co. 327121 1 2 35.0 175 Yes Summit Pressed Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 8.5 75 Yes Summitville Tiles, Inc. 327122 1 4 300.0 175 Yes Superior Clay Corp. 327121 0 0 7.4 75 Yes The Stiles & Hart Brick Company 327121 0 0 4.8 44 Yes Triangle Brick 327121 2 5 29.8 203 Yes Watsontown Brick Co. 327121 1 2 4.1 35 Yes Whitacre Greer 327121 1 2 8.7 75 Yes Yankee Hill Brick and Tile 327121 1 1 NA 75 Yes NA = No annual sales data Sources: Data on total number of ultimate parent company employees and annual sales were gathered from Hoover ’ s, Manta, and company Web sites. 

### 2.5 Market Data and Trends This section presents historical market data for select bricks and structural clay products

. Historical market data include U.S. volumes for manufacturers ’ shipments, 7 

### foreign trade, and apparent consumption. Data were obtained from various years of Current Industrial Reports published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 2

- 5 provides data for common, building, and face bricks, while Table 2

- 6 presents data for structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and glazed, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe. Table 2

- 7 focuses on structural clay tile (except facing), and Table 2

- 8 is for clay floor and wall tile.

7 

### The source re ports list both shipment and production quantities. Here we have chosen shipment quantities over production quantities, even though these do not differ by much in each year or show different trends over time. The reason to choose shipment numbers over prod uction numbers is that shipment quantity is the number that is relevant for final consumption. In fact, when the data source reports calculate “apparent consumption,” they use shipment numbers, not production numbers.

### 2

- 12 Table 2 - 5. Historical Data for Brick ( Building or Common and Face ) (10 3 

### bricks a 

### ): 1993

– 2010

Year Shipment of Bricks b 

### Exports Imports Apparent Consumption b 

### 1993 6,655,400 42,643 10,170 6,622,927 1994 7,237,982 43,733 8,967 7,203,216 1995 6,890,321 43,627 16,867 6,863,561 1996 7,619,279 42,759 20,629 7,597,149 1997 7,732,971 46,518 20,267 7,706,720 1998 8,241,086 40,631 18,243 8,218,698 1999 8,931,700 34,171 24,920 8,922,449 2000 8,616,784 30,712 47,472 8,633,544 2001 7,941,432 30,547 27,579 7,938,464 2002 7,986,393 37,135 25,164 7,974,422 2003 8,519,678 46,286 20,807 8,494,199 2004 9,388,648 75,297 33,436 9,346,787 2005 9,418,759 52,008 49,432 9,416,183 2006 8,899,594 36,421 75,717 8,938,890 2007 7,237,176 40,613 70,914 7,267,477 2008 5,053,935 47,898 97,739 5,103,776 2009 3,585,481 37,640 d ,f 

### 74,479 e ,f 

### 3,622,320 2010 3,495,657 37,532 d ,f 

### 79,054 e ,f 

### 3,537,179 Note: This table presents data for brick (building or common and face), which, by the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.

a Bricks are 2 1/4′′ by 3 5/8′′ by 7 5/8′′ brick equivalent. b This represents shipment quantity of bricks. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the “ definitions ” Web page

for Curren t Industrial Reports at Census Bureau ’ s Web site ( http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html ). The relevant item is “ quantity and value of shipments. ” The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, transferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales p rice, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company ’ s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company o verhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded.
c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Bricks − Exports + Imports d The export data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The export

numbers seem to have the same pattern as shipment numbers. In particular, during 2001

– 2002 and 2007

– 2008 when brick shipment numbers were low, brick export numbers were also low. So we have estimated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 based on the regression exports = a + b*shipments , using 1993 to 2008 data. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports , the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Ho wever, because we lack reliable data on export prices for those years, we do not estimate the quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from the values data. 

### (continued)

### 2

- 13 Table 2 - 5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (10 3 

### bricks a 

### ): 1993

– 2010 (continued)

e The import data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The import

numbers do not seem to be correlated with shipment numbers. For example, during 2001

– 2002 and 2007

– 2008 when brick shi pment numbers were low, brick import numbers were not that low. In fact, plotting the numbers suggests that imports show an increasing trend since 1993. So we have extrapolated to estimate the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a linear trend beginning in the year 1993. We fond imports to be lower in 2009 and 2010 compared with 2008, because the linear trend starts in 1993, and the unusually high 2008 number is only an outlier outside this trend. Another source of information for estimati ng import quantitie s is that, in the Current Industrial Reports , the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. The value of imports drops approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack data on import prices for those years, we di d not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values. f Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and

2010 the industrial reports only list export and im port values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for shipment. So with the latter information, we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the export and import quantities. We explored any systemat ic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systemati cally different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (47,775 for 2009 and 65,099 for 2010) and import quantities (26,069 for 2009 and 23, 956 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite different from past

- year trends. So we decided to opt for the regression method of estimation. g As previous notes indicate, export and import numbers for 2009 and 2010 are estimates. So the annual growth rates are

computed for both 1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Cur rent Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau . 2000

. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Indus trial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. 

### As shown in Table 2

- 5, the brick market shows declines in the quantity of shipments and apparent consumption between 1993 and 2010 with a marked decreases during the recessions beginning in 2007 . An examination of the data during the time period 1993 to 20 10 shows that brick shipment and apparent consumption increased during some years and decreased during other years. However, because of the steep declines beginning in 2007, 2010 values are only about 53% of 1993 values. Brick shipments steadily increased from about 6.6 billion bricks in 1993 to 8. 6 billion bricks in 2000, dropped somewhat in 2001 and remained below the 2000 level until 2003, and rose again in 2004 and 2005 before beginning a steady decline starting in 2006.

### 2

- 14 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010

Year Shipments of Select Structural Clay Product s a 

### Exports b 

### Imports b 

### Apparent Consumption c 

### 1993 193,500 287 648 193,861 1994 188,039 3,187 915 185,767 1995 183,967 1,543 388 182,812 1996 204,908 1,610 345 203,643 1997 218,013 1,334 888 217,568 1998 207,815 2,291 291 205,815 1999 231,876 1,176 389 231,089 2000 217,448 2,092 346 215,702 2001 216,685 1,219 220 215,686 2002 177,558 1,583 607 176,582 2003 177,620 1,258 374 176,736 2004 210,981 1,473 915 210,423 2005 258,393 1,218 526 257,701 2006 219,911 1,041 341 219,211 2007 195,064 1,102 536 194,497 2008 132,181 1,164 463 131,480 2009 98,439 d 

### 1,138 e ,g 

### 512 f ,g 

### 97,813 h 

### 2010 73,183 d 

### 1,098 e ,g 

### 512 f ,g 

### 72,597 h
Note: T his t able presents data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed, which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe , which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327123, Other Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. According to our communication with Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau, in all the Table 1s in the Current Industrial Reports, the category listed as “ Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick ” should in fact be “ Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed. ” The Current Industrial Reports since 1998 omitted the phrase “ including unglazed and salt glazed ” and only mentioned structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick. Calculation rules used when computing numbers from the Industrial reports for this table are 1 million brick equivalent = 2,000 short tons and 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short ton. The source for the first formula is http://midlandbrick.wikidot.com/standard

- brick

- equivalent, which says that 1 standard brick equivalent is equal to a 4 pound brick. Because 1 short ton is equal to 2,000 pounds, this implies the conversion ra tio used here. 

### (continued)

### 2

- 15 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010 (continued)

a This represents shipment quantity of select structural clay products. The definition of value of shipments can be found on th e

“ definitions ” Web page for Current Industrial Reports at the Census Bureau ’ s Web site ( http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html ). The relevant item is quantity and value of shipments. The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, tr ansferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, al lowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company ’ s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded. b For expor t and import numbers between 1998 and 2008, the export and import data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick

including unglazed and salt glazed are not available in the source reports (marked as (X) in the source reports), so the expo rt and import numbe rs are computed with vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings data only.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Select SCP − Exports + Imports d Readers should interpret these numbers carefully. For the 2009 and 2010 shipment numbers, the shipment data for facing tile

and ceramic glazed brick are not available in the source report and are marked as “ (S). ” “ (S) ” means that the numbers did not meet publication standards. We talked to Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau and learned that these numbers involved over 50% of imputation, which is the reason they were not published. However, these imputed numbers were available upon our request, and the 2009

– 2010 shipment numbers in this table were calculated using these numbers for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick i ncluding unglazed and salt glazed. Numbers for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are available in the source reports.
e Because the export quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers for

2 009 and 2010 are estimates for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings exports. The export numbers for vitrified clays do not seem to be correlated to shipment numbers. In particular, during the 2002

– 2003 and 2007

– 2008 recessions when shipment numbers are l ow, the vitrified clay export numbers are not low. Further, plotting the numbers suggests that the exports have decreased over time and exhibit smaller fluctuations over time since 1993. So we have extrapolated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a line ar trend beginning in the year 1993. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. However, beca use we lack reliable d ata on export prices, we do not estimate quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from these values. f Because import quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers here

are based on estimates. The import numbers do not seem to have the same pattern as the shipment numbers. In particular, during 2002

– 2003 and 2007

– 2008 when shipment numbers were obviously low, the import numbers were not. Plotting the numbers suggests that imports of structural clay products have fluctuated widely. So we simply set these numbers at their historical average. Another source of information for estimating import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports , the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Similar to bricks, the value of imports for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings dropped by about 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack reliable data on import prices, we did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values. g Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report bot h quantities and values for shipment. So with the latter information we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systemati cally different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (725 for 2009 and 1,346 for 201 0) and import quantities (206 for 2009 and 206 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed t o be quite different from past

- year trends. So we used the regression method of estimation for exports and historical average method for imports. h These are based on estimates. Please see notes e, f, and g. i As previous notes suggest, data for 2009 and 2010 are based on estimates. So the annual growth rates were computed for both 1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2010. U.S. Departme nt of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2006. 

### (continued)

### 2

- 16 Table 2 - 6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 1993

– 2010 (continued) U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for C lay Construction Products

— Summary 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Constructi on Products

— Summary 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Product s

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1994. 

### Both exports and imports of bricks increased between 1993 and 2008. The largest quantity of brick exports are to Canada (approximately 78% in 2010) (U.S. International Trade Commission [USITC], 2013). The largest quantities of brick and structural cl ay imports are from Germany (40% in 2010) and Mexico (37% in 2010) 8 

### (USITC, 2013). The average annual growth rate for exports was 3.16% during this time period. The growth rate for imports was much larger at 22.61%. In 1993, imports were about 10 million a nd jumped to 98 million by 2010, with significant increases happening in 1995, 2000, 2006, and 2008. This difference between brick export and import growth rates is also evident if we examine exports and imports as proportions of shipments instead of their levels. Exports started at 0.64% of shipments in the year 1993 but had dropped to 0.41% by 2006. Imports started at 0.15% of shipments in 1993 but rose to 0.85% of shipments in 2006. After 2006, both these ratios rose. By 2010, exports and imports as a pe rcentage of shipments rose to 1.07% and 2.26%, respectively. But the rises since 2006 were driven more by decreases in shipments, rather than by changes in the levels of exports and imports.

8 

### Although these two countries typicall y are the largest source of imports, the country shares vary from year to year. For example, in 2012, Germany and Mexico again accounted for more than 65% of imports, but Mexico represented 40% and Germany accounted for 24%.

### 2

- 17 Table 2 - 7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993

– 2010

Year Shipments of Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) 1993 (D) 1994 (D) 1995 53,727 1996 50,990 1997 49,729 1998 49,098 1999 47,156 2000 47,009 2001 49,453 2002 49,563 2003 40,330 2004 40,050 2005 47,704 2006 37,491 2007 35,477 2008 23,410 2009 16,749 2010 12,140 Average Annual Growth Rates 1995

– 2010 −8.31% Note: T his t able presents data for structural clay tile (except facing), which, by 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing. Unlike Table 2

- 7 and Table 2

- 8, this table does not show exports, imports, or appar ent consumption, because the export and import data for structural clay tile (except facing) are not available (marked as (X) in the source reports). “ (D) ” means that the number is “ withheld to avoid disclosing data of individual companies ” in the source r eport. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2006 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2004 U.S. D epartment of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1999 U.S. Department of Commerce, C ensus Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Burea u. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1994.

### 2

- 18 The market for other structural clay products is muc h smaller than the brick market, but it still represents an important sector of the BSCP industry. As Table 2

- 6 shows, both shipments and apparent consumption of structural clay products in 2010 were less than 38% of 1993 values

. Similar to the trend in th e brick market, structural clay product shipments exhibited a steady increase from 194 thousand short tons in 1993 to 232 thousand short tons in 1999, dropped somewhat during the recession in 2002 and 2003, rose between 2003 and 2006, and began a steady de cline starting in 2007. Although structural clay product shipments and consumption declined over the time period 1993 to 2008, the average annual growth rate of exports was high at 67.42%. Although this growth rate looks large, it is relatively small in ab solute terms. This high average growth rate is largely due to a substantial increase in exports of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings from 1993 to 1994. In 1993, 287 short tons of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings were exported from the United States, and i n 1994, this number rose dramatically to 3,187 short tons. Since 1995, exports have mostly stayed between 1,000 and 2,000 short tons. Imports of structural clay products are small, never exceeding a thousand short tons in any year between 1993 and 2008. Th e shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) are even smaller than other structural clay products (which are presented in Table 2

- 6). As Table 2

- 7 shows, the average annual growth rate of shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) is approxim ately −8.3% for the years 1995 to 2010. More specifically, the shipments exhibit a steady decrease from 54 thousand short tons in 1995 to 35 thousand short tons in 2007, during which period the average annual growth rate is only −2.9%. Then in the years 20 08, 2009 , and 2010, the shipment levels dropped sharply by 34.0%, 28.5%, and 27.5%, respectively. As the data in Tables 2

- 5, 2

- 6, and 2

- 7 show, the quantities of all BSCP experienced declines starting in 2007, the year the recent economic crisis set in, an d continued to decline post

- crisis. The data show that shipment levels had recovered after the 2002

– 2003 recession and held steady for the years prior to 2007. The decline since 2007 also appears to be due to the 2007

– 2008 recession rather than to structur al changes within the industry. We expect the industry to come back to its prerecession levels in the future. This is supported by the fact that shipment levels for all BSCP were low during 2001

– 2003, when the early 2000s recession happened in the United S tates and the European Union. However, these shipment levels bounced back after the recession. This prediction is also supported by the recent annual reports of large companies producing these products. For example, the annual reports of large companies su ch as Boral Limited and Saint

- Gobain show them recovering after exhibiting declines during the recession.

### 2

- 19 Boral Limited is an international building and construction materials group headquartered in Australia, and its U.S. operations manufacture clay brick s, concrete, and clay roof tiles and manufactured stone veneer for residential and mid

- rise commercial buildings. 9 

### The 2012 annual report of Boral Limited compares U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A. ’ s earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) during the years 2006

– 2012 and finds them to be highly correlated (Boral Limited, 2012 ). Both the numbers for U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A. ’ s EBIT in the U nited States declined simultaneously between 2006 and 2011 but rose in 2012. U.S. housing starts went from 2,030 thousand in fiscal year 2006 to 570 thousand in fiscal year 2011 , and Boral U.S.A. ’ s EBIT declined to − $ 99 million in 2011 from $ 139 million in 2006. Boral U.S.A. ’ s EBIT rose to − $ 87 million in fiscal year 2012 when U.S. housing starts increased to 685 thousand. Saint

- Gobain S.A, which produces construction products marketed in the United States under the CertainTeed brand, is a Europe

- based multinational company and does not provide its U.S. operations data separately. However, its overall data exhibit synchronization with the economic cycles. Its net sales declined from 30,274 million euros in 2002 (Saint

- Gobain, 2003; 2013 ) to 29,590 million euros in 2003, showed a steady recovery after that to 43,800 million euros in 2008, declined in 2009 to 37,786 million euros, and then recovered in 2011 and 2012 to 42,116 million euros and 43,198 million euros, respectively (Saint

- Gobain, 2013 ). Although their annual reports do not provide data on quantities in shipment, production , or exports as the Current Industrial Reports do, the recent trends in the financial performance of these large companies, in particular the profit and sales data, support that this industry will improve as the effects of the recession recede and the building and construction industry revives. In addition, our prediction that the BSCP industry is only experiencing a temporary setback and will c ome back to prerecession levels is supported by existing reports for the clay and shale industry, which is upstream of the BSCP industry. Put another way, r aw materials typically used in manufacturing BSCP include common clay and shale (Midwest Research In stitute, 2001 ). A recent advance report published in 2013 by the U.S. Department of the Interior and USGS suggests that once statistical data become available, the country may see a moderate growth in common clay sa les in 2012 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013 ). In their

9 

### This information is from the c ompany’s Web site, http://www.boral.com . According to the Web site, Boral’s operations include the largest brick manufacturer and the largest clay tile manufacturer in the United States; through the 50% owned MonierLif etile, it is also the largest concrete roof tile manufacturer in the United States.

### 2

- 20 analysis, the factors supporting the growth are the increases in housing starts and construction spending for commercial buildings similar to what i s evident from the Boral USA example. 2.5.1 Market Prices Average prices for brick and structural products vary by product type and over time. In 2010, the average price of brick was approximately $ 248 per 1,000 S.B.E., clay floor and wall tile was approximately $1.30 per square foot, and vitrified clay sewer pipe and fitting were $496 per short ton (Table 2

- 8 ). There is substantial variation in average brick prices across Census regions ($183 to $541) , as shown in Table 2

- 9 . Since 2005, average nominal prices fo r bricks and clay floor and wall tile have remained flat or fallen (Figure 2

- 2), while average nominal prices for other structural clay products have risen to higher levels. Table 2 - 8 . Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010
Product Average Price Units Brick, building or common and facing $248 $ per 1,000 S.B.E. Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings $496 $ per short ton Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. 

### Table 2 - 9 . Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010 Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E. New England $379 Middle Atlantic $324 East North Central $297 West North Central $272 South Atlantic $227 East South Central $183 West South Central $225 Mountain $355 Pacific $541 United States $248 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

### 2

- 21 Figure 2 - 2. Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products Source: U.S. Bureau of the Labor Statistics, 2013a,b 

### 2.6 References Boral Limited. 2012. Annual Report 2012

. http://www.boral.com.au/Images/common/pdfs/annual

- reports/Boral

- Annual

- Report

2012.pdf

. Brick Industry Association. 2013a. An Overview of the American Brick Industry. http://www.gobrick.com/resources/americanbrickindustry/tabid/7644/defau lt.aspx ( accessed on August 16, 2013). Brick Industry Association. 2013b. 2012 Brick Industry Annual Report

. V ersion 4.0. Federal Reserve Board. 2013. Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization

— G.17. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ (August 16, 2013). Ho, M., R. Morgenstern, J. Shih. 2008 . Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper DP 0 8

- 37

. http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF

- DP

- 08

- 37.pdf

. Midwest Research Institute. 2001. Industry Characterization for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

.

### 2

- 22 Mohawk Industries, Inc. 2012. 2011 Annual Report

. http://phx.corporate

ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTMzMjE1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZ T0z&t=1

. National Association of Homebuilders. 2013. NAHB Study Reveals What Home Buyers Really Want. February 19, 201 3. Rutherford, T.F. 2002. Lecture Notes on Constant Elasticity Functions. http://www.gamsworld.eu/mpsge/debreu/ces.pdf

. Saint

- Gobain. 2003 Annual Report 2002 . http://www.saint

gobain.com/files/Ra pport_annuel_2002_EN.pdf

. Saint

- Gobain. 2013. Registration Document 2012. http://www.saint

gobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2012_EN.pdf

. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013a. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) Series ID: CEU3132700003. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013b. Consumer Price Index

— All Urban Consumers Series ID: CUUR0000SA0. U.S. Census Bureau 2013 a . Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups and In dustries: 2011 and 2010; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov . ( August 16, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013 b. Geography Area Series: County Business Patterns: 2011; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder

. http://factfinder2.census.gov

. (August 16, 2013). U .S. Census Bureau. 2013c . Historical New Residential Construction Started. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/

. (August 16, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013d . New Residential Construction Press Release

. August 16, 2013. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/

. (August 16, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013e. Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of Value of Shipments Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for Industries: 2007; generated by RTI Internatio nal; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov . ( September 12, 2013). U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2011: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Const ruction Products

— Summary 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2009: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2008.

### 2

- 23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2007: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Prod ucts

— Summary 2006. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2005: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2004: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2003: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2002: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2000: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau

. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1998. U.S. Department o f Commerce, Census Bureau

. 1998: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1997. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products; Summary, 1995. U.S. Department of Commerce , Census Bureau

. 1995: Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products

— Summary 1994. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

. May 2013

. 2011 Minerals Yearbook, Clay and Shale [Advance Release]

. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1

- 2011

- clays.pdf

. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. 2007 Commodity Flow Survey United States. Table 15. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow_surv ey/final_tables_december_2009/index.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Emission Factor Documentation for AP

- 42, Section 11.3 , “ Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Final Report. ” http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s03.pdf U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Minerals Yearbook: Clay and Shale. Written by R. L. Virta. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1

- 2011

- clays.pdf

.

### 2

- 24 U.S. International Trade Commission. Interactive Trade and DataWeb. U.S. Imports for Consumption and U.S. Domestic Exports, NAICS 327121. (December 31, 2013). http://dataweb.usitc.gov/ , then search for NAICS 327121. U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2013. Table of Small Business Size Standards. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/size_table_07222013.pdf

.

### 3

- 1 SECTION 3 ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS Production of BSCP results in emissions of pollutants such as hydrogen fluoride (HF ), hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl 2 

### ), mercury (Hg), and non

- Hg hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals from the kilns used in the production process. To control these emissions, EPA has developed emission standards for these HAPs under the authority of Section 112 of the CAA. This section explains how the estimate s of compliance costs associated with this regulation w ere developed , a nd it is organized as follows:

■ 

### Section 3.1, Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach: This section describes the regulatory approaches considered in this analysis and presents the annual cost for each of the compliance options and the various regio ns of the country. It also describes the air pollution control devices (APCDs) and the pollutants targeted because they are key to understanding how the annual costs were obtained.

■ 

### Section 3.2, Summary of Costs by Control Device: There are various APCD imp lementation options to meet the compliance requirements. This section presents the overall capital and annual costs for those implementation options. It also provides key considerations for how the costs were derived. 3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulato ry Approach EPA evaluated costs for affected BSCP facilities under two regulatory approaches:

■ 

### Proposed Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or no n - Hg HAP metals in lb/hr for all kilns with no emissions averaging.

■ 

### Alternate Standards: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton or concentration, and a choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf or non

- Hg HAP metals lb/hr for small and large kilns (emissions averaging is allowed to meet the PM and non

- Hg HAP metals limits). Both approaches assume the facility would choose to become a Synthetic Area (SA) by installing dry limestone adsorbers (DLAs) on uncontrolled kilns if that is less expensive than installing the control needed to comply with the compliance option. Both approaches have separate Hg numeric limits for large and small kilns, and the HBS applies to all kilns at the facility for all compliance options. These costs include the implementation of various APCDs. The following are the APCDs considered:

### 3

- 2 ■ 

### Dry injection fabric filter (DIFF). DIFFs are used to remove HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 

### ), and PM. They work by injecting hydrated lime (a dry lime powder) into the kiln exhaust. The lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an exhaust duct and are ducted to a fabric filter. The lime reacts with and removes HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , and SO 2 

### from the exhaust stream.

■ 

### Dry lime scrubber/ fabric filter (DLS/FF). DLS/FFs are u sed to control HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , SO 2 

### , and PM emissions. These systems mix hydrated lime and water in a conditioning drum and then inject the lime/water slurry into a reaction chamber, where the slurry mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas removal takes place i n the reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and across the lime

- caked fabric filter bags. From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric filter for PM removal.

■ 

### Dry limestone adsorber (DLA). DLAs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , and S O 2 

### emissions. Limestone is fed into the top of a reaction chamber countercurrent to the kiln exhaust gases. The limestone cascades through multiple baffles within the chamber and reacts with and removes HF and, to a lesser degree, HCl , Cl 2 

### and SO 2 

### from the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for controlling PM.

■ 

### Fabric filter (FF). FFs are used to control PM emissions. Most FFs use long, cylindrical bags made of a woven material that acts as a filter medium. Gas enters the FF and is drawn through the bags, and PM accumulates in layers on the surface of the filter media until gas can no longer move through the bag. When the system reaches a sufficient pressure drop due to PM build

- up, the bag will be cleaned. The system does not provide a me chanism for controlling Hg, HCl, Cl 2 

### , or SO 2 

### .

■ 

### Activated carbon injection (ACI). An ACI system would pneumatically inject activated carbon into the flue gas ductwork of a kiln. The activated carbon adsorbs the vaporized mercury from the flue gas and is then collected with the fly ash in a particulate collection device. This device is assumed to work with a fabric filter for particulates collection. Cost estimates were developed for each BSCP facility assuming the APCDs are implemented according to various sc enarios. In general, an FF and ACI were assumed to be the APCD needed to meet the MACT limits for an uncontrolled kiln. Table 3

- 1 presents the general implementation scenarios for tunnel kilns required to meet MACT for all pollutants.

### 3

- 3 Table 3 - 1. APCD Impl ementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

APCD Meets Non - Hg HAP Metals or PM Limit Meets Mercury Limit APCD Implementation Scenario None Yes No Install new FF with ACI None No Yes Install new FF None No No Install new FF with ACI Existing DIFF Yes Yes No action Existing DIFF Yes No Add ACI Existing DIFF No Yes Retrofit DIFF for PM control Existing DIFF No No Retrofit DIFF for PM control ; add ACI Existing DLS/FF Yes Yes No action Existing DLA Yes No Add FF with ACI Existing DLA No Yes Add FF Existing DLA No No Add FF with ACI



### The option to “ Install new DLA ” was evaluated for facilities to become an SA. All scenarios in Table 3

- 1 assume meeting the HBS for acid gases. The following are the scenarios considered to meet the HBSs:

■ 

### If a kiln can meet the non - Hg HAP metals or PM and Hg MACT limits and is located at a facility that can meet the health

- based limits, no additional costs would be incurred.

■ 

### If an uncontrolled kiln or a kiln with a DLA is located at a facility that can meet the health

- based limits, then only a n FF would be needed to meet the non - Hg HAP metals or PM MACT limit, and activated carbon injection would be needed to meet the Hg MACT limit

.

■ 

### Because the health

- based limits are on a facility

- wide basis, the owner or o perator of a facility not meeting the health

- based limits with current controls may not have to add an APCD to every uncontrolled kiln and enhance every existing APCD. Engineering judgment was used to assign minimum control “ actions needed ” based on a revi ew of the contribution of each emission point ’ s to the allow able HCl

equivalent emissions. Additional information about this assessment is presented in the memorandum “ Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector ” included in the docket. Table 3

- 2 presents the annual cost for each of the regulatory approaches.

### 3

- 4 Table 3 - 2 . National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD)
Regions Proposed Standards Alternate Standards NEG New England $0 $0 MID Middle Atlantic $ 1 $ 1 ENC East North Central $ 4 $ 6 WNC West North Central $ 1 $ 2 SAC South Atlantic $ 7 $ 11 ESC East South Central $ 2 $ 4 WSC West South Central $ 5 $ 7 MTN Mountain < $ 1 < $ 1 PAC Pacific < $ 1 $ 1 USA United States $ 21 $ 31



### 3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device A key component of the total annual costs presented in Table 3

- 1 is the implementation cost of the APCDs required to (1) meet the MACT limits for Hg and for non

- Hg HAP metals or PM , (2) become an SA source, and/or (3) meet an HBS for acid gases, according to the compliance options. This section provides an overview of how the capital and annual costs of implementation were estimated. Additional information about those estimates is p rovided in the memorandum “ Details on the Estimation of Engineering Costs Associated with the Implementation of the Compliance Options for the BSCP Sector ” included in the docket. Consistent with the information presented in Section 3

. 1 , the following are the APCD implementation scenarios considered in this analysis:

■ 

### Install new DLA

■ 

### Install new ACI

■ 

### Install new FF

■ 

### Install new FF and ACI

■ 

### Retrofit with DIFF

■ 

### Retrofit with DIFF and ACI

■ 

### No action

### 3

- 5 Table 3

- 3 presents the capital and annual costs of each implementa tion option. Table 3 - 3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

Control options Capital Costs Annual Costs Small APCD Large APCD Small APCD Large APCD Install new FF $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $437,845 $526,006 Install new DLA $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $310,036 $409,718 Install new ACI $ 102,224 $ 146,697 $ 70,589 $ 96,842 Install new DIFF and ACI $ 2,102,224 $ 2,876,697 $ 683,886 $ 893,938 Install new FF and ACI $ 1,302,224 $ 1,646,697 $ 508,434 $ 622,848 Retrofit with DIFF $2,800,000 $3,820,000 $720, 811 $943, 585 Retrofit with DIFF and ACI $ 2,902,224 $ 3,966,697 $ 791,400 $ 1,040,427



### C osts are presented for small and large APCD s . A small control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is less than 10 tons of bricks per hour. A large control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is 10 tons of bricks or more per hour. Capital cost data were generally obtained from the Information Collectio n Request (ICR) and supplemented with information from literature sources. The estimates of annual cost include

■ 

### operation and maintenance (O&M) labor;

■ 

### materials ;

■ 

### electricity;

■ 

### waste disposal ;

■ 

### overhead ; and

■ 

### property taxes, insurance, and administration

. Info rmation pertaining to cost data sources and how they were used to develop unit costs for each APCD is provided in the memorandum “ Methodology and Assumptions Used to Estimate the Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices. ”

### 3

- 6 Annualization of the capital c o sts involves establi s hing an annual “ pay m ent ” sufficient to finance the invest m ent over the expected lifeti m e of the equip m ent or loan period. This pay m ent is typically referred to as t h e “ ca p ital recovery cost. ” The t h ree key inputs into the capital recovery costs are the capital costs, the interest rate, and the equipment life. This analysis assumed a 20

- year equipment life and a 7% interest rate, which corresponds to the interest rate used in OAQPS ’ s analyses. 3.3 Summary of Results This s ection presents total annualized costs for each regulatory approach. Total annualized cost is the sum of the annualized capital cost and the annual costs. The followin g is a summary of those results :

■ 

### Proposed Standards: approximately $ 21 million

■ 

### Alternate Standards: approximately $ 31 million Annual costs listed above for each compliance option also include costs for testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs incurred by facilities that have testing and monitoring costs. When looki ng at annual costs per region of the country, t he South Atlantic region ( SAC ) consistently exhibit s the highest cost and the Pacific region ( P AC) the lowest nonzero cost. The APCD requirements vary by approach, and the following is a summary of the annual costs for each of the APCD implementation scenarios, presented as ranges for small and large APCDs:

■ 

### Install new DIFF : $613, 297

– $797, 096

■ 

### Install new FF: $437,845

– $526,006

■ 

### Install new DLA : $310,036

– $409,718

■ 

### Install new ACI : $ 70,589

– $ 96,842

■ 

### Install new DIFF a nd ACI : $ 683,886

– $ 893,938

■ 

### Install new FF and ACI : $ 508,434

– $ 622,848

■ 

### Retrofit with DIFF : $720, 811

– $943, 585

■ 

### Retrofit with DIFF and ACI : $791,400

– $1, 040,427

### 3

- 7 Retrofitting with DIFF and ACI is the option that exhibits the highest cost and installing a new ACI s ystem the lowest, which is consistent with the capital cost results. We provide additional details on the number of stack s required to take action to achieve compliance (Table 3

- 4). Additional details on existing baseline control devices is presented in the memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” included in the docket. Table 3 - 4 . Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD) Action to Achieve Compliance

Standards Parameter Install DLA (become SA) Install FF Install FF + ACI Add ACI to Existing APCD Retrofit with DIFF Totals Proposed Number of Stacks 14 4 16 3 1 38 Capital Cost $18.9 $5.40 $26.3 $0.440 $3.82 $54.9 Annual Cost $5.24 $1.93 $10.0 $0.289 $0.944 $18.4 Alternate Number of Stacks 31 16 15 3 1 66 Capital Cost $38.3 $21.6 $24.7 $0.440 $3.82 $88.9 Annual Cost $10.7 $7.71 $9.34 $0.289 $0.944 $29.0

### 4

- 1 SECTION 4 HUMAN HEALTH BENEFIT S OF EMISSIONS REDUC TIONS Synopsis Implementation of emissions controls required by the proposed Brick and Structural Clay NESHAP is expected to reduce direct emissions of p a rticulate m atter in particular PM 2.5 

### and sulfu r d ioxide SO 2 

### that are the result of emissions limits that are being tightened for a number of categories, and imposed for the first time for other categories

. In this section, we quantify the monetized co

- benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 

### ) by reducing emissions of precursors. The total PM 2.5 

### and SO 2 

### reductions are the consequence of the expected d esign changes to the affected manufacturing plants needed in order to meet the multiple limits. We estimate the total monetized co

- benefits to be $52 million to $120 million at a 3% discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a y early average in 2018 for the proposed standards

. All estimates are in 2011$. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5 

### reduced by this rule. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as hi gh as 740 tons of HAPs each year through one of the regulatory approache s, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 

### , this rule would reduce several non

- mercur y HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year. 4.1 PM 2.5 

### - Related Human Health Co - Benefits This rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions o f SO 2 

### , which is a precursor to formation of ambient PM 2.5 

### . Therefore

, 

### reducing these emissions would also reduce human exposure to ambient PM 2.5 

### and the incidence of PM 2.5 

### - related health effects. In this section, we provide an overview of the PM 2.5 

### - related benefits. A full description of the underlying data, studies, and assumptions is provided in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). In implementing this rule, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM 2.5 

### concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some areas and assist other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) also calculated PM benefits, t here are important differences worth noting in the

### 4

- 2 design and analytical object ives of each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and benefits of attaining a revised air quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission reduction strategies for different sources including known and unknown controls, incremental t o implementation of existing regulations and controls need to attain the current standards. In short, NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the reduction strategies that States may choose to enact when implementing a revised NAAQS. The setting of a N AAQS does not directly result in costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and the estimated costs and benefits are not intended to be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result in specific costs of contro l and emission reductions. However, it is possible that some costs and benefits associated with the required emission controls estimated in this RIA may account for the same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM NAAQS RIA. By contra st, the emission reductions for implementation rules such as this rulemaking are generally for specific, well

- characterized sources. In general, EPA is more confident in the magnitude and location of the emission reductions for implementation rules. As suc h, emission reductions achieved under these and other promulgated implementation rules will ultimately be reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs and benefits associated with attaining revised future NAA QS. EPA remains forward looking towards the next iteration of the 5

- year review cycle for the NAAQS. As a result, EPA does not
re - issue NAAQS RIAs that retroactively update the baseline to account for implementation rules promulgated after a NAAQS RIA outs ide of the NAAQS review process. For more information on the relationship between the NAAQS and implementation rules such as analyzed here, please see Section 1.3 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a ). 4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA) (U.S. EPA, 2009) identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM 2.5, 

### which include premature morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposure s. Table 4

- 1 provides the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in EPA ’ s benefits estimates for reduced exposure to ambient PM 2.5 

### . Although the table below does not include entries for the unquantified health effects such as exposure to ozone and N O 2 

### nor welfare effects such as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment, these effects are itemized in Chapters 5 and 6 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified benefit categories is not exhaustiv e, nor is quantification of each effect complete.

### 4

- 3 Table 4 - 1 . Human Health Effects of Ambient PM 2.5



### Category Specific Effect Effect Has Been Quantified Effect Has Been Monetized More Information in PM NAAQS RIA Improved Human Health Reduced incidence of premature mortality from exposure to PM 2.5 

### Adult premature mortality based on cohort study estimates and expert elicitation estimates (age >25 or age >30)   Section 5.6
Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.6 Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to PM 2.5 

### Non

- fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.6 Hospital admissions

— respiratory (all ages)   Section 5.6 Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular (age >20)   Section 5.6 Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)   Section 5.6 Acute bronchitis (age 8

– 12)   Section 5.6 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7

– 14)   Section 5.6 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

– 11)   Section 5.6 Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6

– 18)   Section 5.6 Lost work days (age 18

– 65)   Section 5.6 Minor restricted

- activity days (age 18

– 65)   Section 5.6 Chronic Bronchitis (age >26)

-- a



### -- a 

### Section 5.6 Emergency room visits for cardiovascular effects (all ages) -- a



### -- a 

### Section 5.6 Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50

– 79) -- a



### -- a 

### Section 5.6 Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages)

-- -- PM ISA b 

### Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary function, non

- asthma ER visits, non

bronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and populations) -- -- PM ISA b



### Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., low birth weight, pre

- term births, etc

. ) -- -- PM ISA b,c 

### Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects

-- -- PM ISA b,c

a 

### We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. In the PM NAAQS

RIA, these benefits were quantified in a sensitivity analysis, but not in the core analysis. b 

### We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.
c 

### We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other

significant concerns over the strength of the association.

### 4

- 4 We follow a “ damage

- function ” approach in calculating benefits, which estimates changes in individual healt h endpoints (specific effects that can be associated with changes in air quality) and assigns values to those changes assuming independence of the values for those individual endpoints. Because EPA rarely has the time or resources to perform new rese arch t o measure directly either the health outcomes or their values for regulatory analyses, our estimates are based on the best available methods of benefits transfer, which is the science and art of adapting primary research from similar contexts to estimate b enefits for the environmental quality change under analysis. The health impact assessment (HIA) quantifies the changes in the incidence of adverse health impacts resulting from changes in human exposure to PM 2.5 

### or other air pollutants. We use the environ mental Ben efits M apping and A nalysis P rogram (BenMAP) to systematize health impact analyses by applying a database of key input parameters, including population projections, health impact functions, valuation functions (Abt Associates, 2012). For this
asse ssment, the HIA is limited to those health effects that are directly linked to ambient PM 2.5 

### concentrations. There may be other indirect health impacts associated with implementing emissions controls, such as occupational health exposures. Epidemiological studies generally provide estimates of the relative risks of a particular health effect for a given increment of air pollution (often per 10 μg/m 3 

### for PM 2.5 

### ). These relative risks can be used to develop risk coefficients that relate a unit reduction in PM 2 .5 

### to changes in the incidence of a health effect. We refer the reader to section 5.6 of the PM NAAQS RIA for more information regarding the epidemiology studies and risk coefficients applied in this analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and we briefly elaborate on adult premature mortality below. The size of the mortality effect estimates from epidemiological studies, the serious nature of the effect itself, and the high monetary value ascribed to prolonging life make mortality risk reduction the most significant he alth endpoint quantified in this analysis. Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies, the PM ISA documents the association between elevated PM 2.5 

### concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009). The PM ISA, which was twice reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board (SAB

- CASAC) (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2009b, 2009c), concluded t hat there is a causal relationship between mortality and both long

- term and short

- term exposure to PM 2.5 

### based on the entire body of scientific evidence. The PM ISA also concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no

- threshold log

- li near model

### 4

- 5 most adequately portrays the PM

- mortality concentration

- response relationship while recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration

- response function. For mortality, we use the effect coefficients from the most rece nt epidemiology studies examining two large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Krewski et al., 2009 ) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Lepeule et al., 2012 ). The PM ISA (U.S. EPA, 2009) concluded that the ACS and Six Cities cohorts provide the strongest evidence of the association between long

- term PM 2.5 

### exposure and premature mortality with support from a number of additional cohort studies. The SAB ’ s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB

- HE S) also supported using these two cohorts for analyses of the benefits of PM reductions (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2010a). As both the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we present benefits estimates using relative risk estimates from both these cohorts (Krewski et al., 2009; Lepeule et al., 2012). As a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM 2.5 

### - mortality relationship, EPA graphically presents benefits derived from EPA ’ s expert elicitation study (Roman et al., 2008; IEc, 2006). The primary goal of the 2006 study was to elicit from a sample of health experts probabilistic distributions describing uncertainty in estimates of the reduction in mortality among the adult U.S. population resulting from reductions in ambient annu al average PM 2.5 

### levels. In that study, twelve experts provided independent opinions of the PM 2.5 

### - mortality concentration

response function. Because the experts relied upon the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies to inform their concentration

- response funct ions, the benefits estimates derived from the expert responses generally fall between results derived from the these studies (see Figure 7

- 1). We do not combine the expert results in order to preserve the breadth and diversity of opinion on the expert pane l. This presentation of the expert

- derived results is generally consistent with SAB advice (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2008), which recommended that the EPA emphasize that “ scientific differences existed only with respect to the magnitude of the effect of PM 2.5 

### on mor tality, not whether such an effect existed ” and that the expert elicitation “ supports the conclusion that the benefits of PM 2.5 

### control are very likely to be substantial .” Although it is possible that newer scientific literature could revise the experts ’ q uantitative responses if elicited again, we believe that these general conclusions are unlikely to change. 4.1.2 Economic Valuation After quantifying the change in adverse health impacts, we estimate the economic value of these avoided impacts. Reductions in amb ient concentrations of air pollution generally lower the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large population. Therefore, the

### 4

- 6 appropriate economic measure is willingness to pay (WTP) for changes in risk of a health effect. For som e health effects, such as hospital admissions, WTP estimates are generally not available, so we use the cost of treating or mitigating the effect. These cost

- of

- illness (COI) estimates generally (although not necessarily in every case) understate the true value of reductions in risk of a health effect. They tend to reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment but not the value of avoided pain and suffering from the health effect. The unit values applied in this analysis are provided in Table 5

- 9 of the PM NAAQS RIA for each health endpoint (U.S. EPA, 2012a). Avoided premature deaths account for 98% of monetized PM

- related benefits. The economics literature concerning the appropriate method for valuing reductions in premature mortality risk is still d eveloping. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economics and public policy analysis community. Following the advice of the SAB ’ s Environmental Economics A dvisory Committee (SAB

- EEAC), the EPA currently uses the value of statistical life (VSL) approach in calculating estimates of mortality benefits, because we believe this calculation provides the most reasonable single estimate of an individual ’ s willingnes s to trade off money for reductions in mortality risk (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2000). The VSL approach is a summary measure for the value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of people. EPA continues work to update its guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions, and the Agency consulted several times with the SAB

- EEAC on the issue. Until updated guidance is available, the Agency determined that a single, peer

- reviewed estimate applied consistently best reflects the SAB

- EEAC advice it ha s received. Therefore, EPA has decided to apply the VSL that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000) 10 

### while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. This approach c alculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these studies is $6.3 million (2000$). 11 

### We then adjust this VSL to account for the currency year used in this RIA and to account for income growth from 1990 to the analysis year.

10 

### In the updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e), EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the SAB with the understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be forthcoming in the near future. 11 

### In 1990$, this VSL is $4.8 million.

### 4

- 7 The Agency is committed to using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding t o the SAB

EEAC ’ s specific recommendations. In the process, the Agency has identified a number of important issues to be considered in updating its mortality risk valuation estimates. These are detailed in a white paper on “ Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Environmental Policy, ” (U.S. EPA, 2010c) which recently underwent review by the SAB

- EEAC. A meeting with the SAB on this paper was held on March 14, 2011 and formal recommendations were transmitted on July 29, 2011 (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2011). Draft guidance responding to SAB recommendations will be developed shortly. In valuing premature mortality, we discount the value of premature mortality occurring in future years using rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). We assume that there is a “ cessation ” lag between chan ges in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. Although the structure of the lag is uncertain, the EPA follows the advice of the SAB

- HES to assume a segmented lag structure characterized by 30% of mortality reductions in the fi rst year, 50% over years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 to 20 after the reduction in PM 2.5 

### (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2004c). Changes in the cessation lag assumptions do not change the total number of estimated deaths but rather the timing of those deaths. 4.1.3 Benefit - p er - ton Estimates Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a “ benefit

- per - ton ” approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. EPA has applied in several previous RIAs (e.g., U. S. EPA, 2011b, 2011d, 2012b ). These benefit

per - ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of PM 2.5 

### (or PM 2.5 

### precursor such as NO x 

### or SO 2 

### ) from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates from the “ Other Non

- EGU Point ” sector 12 , 13 

### by the corresponding emission reductions. The method used to derive these estimates is described in the Technical Support Document (TSD) on estimating the benefits

- per - ton of reducing PM 2.5 

### and its precursors (U.S. EPA, 2013). One limitation of using the benefit

- per - ton approach is an inability to provide estimates of the health benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO 2 

### or ozone.

12 

### As explained in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013), we only have benefit

- per - ton estimates for certain analysis years (i.e., 2005, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030). For this RIA, we selected the benefit

- per - ton estimate closest to the analysis year for this RIA. 13 

### [Data from year 20 16 was used as cl osest to full implementation year 20 18 for this rule , and the sector was matched with Non EGU Others category ]

### 4

- 8 The benefit

- per - ton estimates described in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013) were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. (2012), but they have since been updated to reflect the studies and population data in the final PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. E PA, 2012a). The approach in Fann et al. (2012) is similar to the work previously published by Fann et al. (2009), but the newer study includes improvements that EPA believes would provide more reliable estimates of PM 2.5 

### - related health benefits for emissio ns reductions in specific sectors. Specifically, the air quality modeling data reflect sectors that are more narrowly defined. In addition, the updated air quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions data (2005 rather than 2001) and has higher spa tial resolution (12km rather than 36 km grid cells). As noted below in the characterization of uncertainty, all benefit

- per - ton estimates have inherent limitations. Specifically, all national

- average benefit

- per - ton estimates reflect the geographic distri bution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions in this rulemaking, and they may not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for an y specific location. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

per - ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 

### levels, which drive population exposu re. The sector

- specific modeling does not provide estimates of the PM 2.5 

### - related benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions, but these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to other PM 2.5 

### precursors (U.S. EPA, 2012a). 4.1.4 PM 2.5 

### Co - Benefits Re sults Table 4

- 2 summarizes the monetized PM

- related health benefits by precursor pollutant, including the emission reductions and benefit

- per - ton estimates using discount rates of 3% and 7%. Table 4

- 3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidenc es associated with these pollution reductions. Figure 4

- 1 provides a visual representation of the range of PM 2.5 

### - related benefits estimates using concentration

- response functions from Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et al. (2012) as well as the 12 functi ons supplied by experts. In Table 4

- 4 , we provide the benefits using our anchor points of Krewski et al. , and Lepeule et al. , as well as the results from the 12 expert s ’ elicitation on P M mortality.

### 4

- 9 Table 4 - 2 . Summary of Monetized PM 2.5 

### and its Precursor SO 2 

### - Related Health Co Benefits Estimates for the Brick and S tructural C lay Rule in 20 18 (201 1 $) a

Pollutant Emissions Reductions

(tons) Benefit per ton (Krewski,

3%) Benefit per ton (LePeule,

3%) Benefit per ton (Krewski,

7%) Benefit per ton (LePeule,

7%) Total Monetized Benefits (millions

2011$ at 3%) Total Monetized Benefits (millions

2011$ at 7%)ProposedStandards Direct PM 2.5 170 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $ 45 to $1 00 $ 41 to $9 2 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 173 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $ 7 to $ 16 $ 6 to $ 14 Total $5 2 to $120 $4 7 to $110AlternateStandards Direct PM 2.5 242 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $6 4 to $14 5 $5 8 to $130 PM 2.5 Precursors

SO 2 337 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $1 4 to $ 3 1 $1 2 to $ 2 7
Total $ 78 to $1 8 0 $7 0 to $160

a 

### All estimates are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. It is important to

note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct exposure to NO 2 

### , ozone exposure, e cosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 

### levels, which drive population exposure. T he monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

per - ton methodology. 

### Table 4 - 3 . Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences fr om PM 2.5 

### and its Precursor SO 2 

### - Related Co - Benefits for Brick and S tructural C lay Rule in 20 18 a 

### Avoided Premature Mortality Propos ed Standards Alternate Standards Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) 6 9 Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) 13 20 Avoided Morbidity Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) 3 5 Acute bronchitis (age 8

– 12) 9 14 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7

– 14) 120 170 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

– 11) 170 250 Minor restricted

- activity days (age 18

– 65) 4 , 700 7 , 000 Lost work days (age 18

– 65) 780 1 , 200 Asthma exacerbation (age 6

– 18) 170 250 Hospital admissions

— respiratory (all ages) 2 2 Hospital admissions

— cardiovascular (age > 18) 2 3 Non

- Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18) Peters et al. (2001) 6 9 Pooled estimate of 4 studies 1 1

a 

### All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. Confidence intervals are unavailable for

this analysis because of the benefit

- per - ton methodology.

### 4

- 10 Figure 4 - 1 . Total Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co - Benefits of Proposed Brick and S tructural C lay Rule in 20 18 a

a 

### This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the

Krewski et al. study and the Lepeule et al

. study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA ’ s expert elicitation on PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; rather, the estimates are based in par t on the concentration

- response function s provided in those studies. 

### Table 4 - 4. All PM 2.5 

### Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 201 8 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($201 1 millions) a


### Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7% Benefit - per - ton Coefficients Derived from Epidemiology Literature Krewski et al. $52 $47 $78 $70 Lepeule et al. $120 $110 $180 $160 Benefit - per - ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation Expert A $130 $120 $200 $180 Expert B $110 $98 $160 $150 Expert C $110 $96 $160 $140 Expert D $75 $68 $110 $100 Expert E $170 $160 $260 $230 (continued) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 

### Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other expert Functions Proposed Standards

3% 7%

### 4

- 11 Table 4 - 4. All PM 2.5 

### Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 201 8 at Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($201 1 millions) a 

### (continued) Proposed Standards Alternate Standards

3% 7% 3% 7% Expert F $100 $91 $150 $140 Expert G $63 $57 $94 $85 Expert H $78 $71 $120 $100 Expert I $110 $95 $160 $140 Expert J $86 $78 $130 $120 Expert K $13 $12 $19 $18 Expert L $73 $66 $110 $98

a 

### All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. Estimates do not include confidence intervals because they

were derived through the benefit

- per - ton technique described above. The benefits estimates from the expert elicitation are provided as a reason able characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated with the concentration

- response function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefit

- per - ton methodology. 

### The specific control technologies f or the proposed rule are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefit s , including an increase of 28 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO x 

### ), less than two tons of PM, three tons of carbon monoxide CO, and 82 tons of Sulfer dioxide (S O 2 

### ) each year. Given the insign ificant increase only secondary effects of PM and SO 2 

### were included in the monetary evaluation of the actual benefits. 4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM 2.5 

### Co - Benefits In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from nu merous models, there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. This analysis is no exception. This analysis includes many data sources as inputs, including emission inventories, air quality data from models (with their associated parameters and inputs) , population data, population estimates, health effect estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data for monetizing benefits, and assumptions regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human behavior). Each of these in puts may be uncertain and would affect the benefits estimate. When the uncertainties from each stage of the analysis are compounded, even small uncertainties can have large effects on the total quantified benefits. Therefore, the estimates of annual benefi ts should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits expected, rather than the actual benefits that would occur every year.

### 4

- 12 This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) beca use we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. However, the results of the uncertainty analyses presented in the PM NAAQS RIA can provide some information regarding the uncertainty inherent in the benefits result s presented in this analysis. Sensitivity analyses conducted for the PM NAAQS RIA indicate that alternate cessation lag assumptions could change the PM 2.5 

### - related mortality benefits discounted at 3% by between 10% and

– 27% and that alternate income growth adjustments could change the PM 2.5 

### - related mortality benefits by between 33% and −14%. Unlike the PM NAAQS RIA, we do not have data on the specific location of the air quality changes associated with this rulemaking. As such, it is not feasible to estimate the proportion of benefits occurring in different locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. Instead, we applied benefit

- per - ton estimates, which reflect specific geographic patterns of emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits mo deling assumptions. For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors that might lead to an over

- estimate or under

- estimate of the actual bene fits of controlling PM precursors. Use of these $/ton values to estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than if benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in applying these estimates to emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are all based on national or broad regional emission reduction programs and therefore represent average benefits

- per - ton over the entire United States. The benefits

- per - ton for emission redu ctions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here. To the extent that the geographic distributions of the emissions reductions for this rule are different than the modeled emissions, the benefits may be underestimated or overestimated. In general, there is inherently more uncertainty for new sources, which may not be included in the emissions inventory, than existing sources. For more information, see the TSD describing the calculation of these benefit

- per - ton estimates (U .S. EPA, 2013). Our estimate of the total benefits is based on EPA ’ s interpretation of the best available scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB

- HES and the NAS (NRC, 2002 ). Below are key assumptions underlying the estim ates for premature mortality which accounts for 98% of the total monetized PM 2.5 

### benefits: 1. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, bec ause PM 2.5 

### varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific

### 4

- 13 evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimate s by particle type. The PM ISA concluded that “ many constituents of PM 2.5 

### can be linked with multiple health effects, and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific outcomes ” (U.S. EPA, 2009). 2. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is log

- line ar without a threshold in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM 2.5 

### , including both areas that do not meet the fine particle standard and those areas that are in att ainment, down to the lowest modeled concentrations. 3. We assume that there is a “ cessation ” lag between the change in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in mortality effects. Specifically, we assume that some of the incidences of premature mo rtality related to PM 2.5 

### exposures occur in a distributed fashion over the 20 years following exposure based on the advice of the SAB

- HES (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2004c), which affects the valuation of mortality benefits at different discount rates. In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 

### concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less conf ident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 

### concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level [LML] or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study ) a llow readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 

### levels at or above different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM 2.5 

### mortality benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less, and the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the EPA does not view these
con centration benchmarks as a concentration threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air quality improvements. 14 

### Rather, the benefits estimates reported in this RIA are the best estimates because they reflect the full range of air quality concentrations associated with the emission reduction strategies and because the current body of scientific literature indicates that a no

- threshold model provides the best estimate of PM

- related long

- term mortality. In other words, although we may have l ess confidence in the magnitude of the risk at

14 

### F or a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a threshold in the PM 2.5 

### - mortality relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration

- Response Function for PM 2.5 

### - related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b).

### 4

- 14 concentrations below these benchmarks, we still have high confidence that PM 2.5 

### is causally associated with risk at those lower air quality concentrations. For this analysis, policy

- specific air quality data i s not available due to time or resource limitations. For these rules, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule ’ s emission reductions at each PM 2.5 

### level. However, we believe that it is still importa nt to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each PM 2.5 

### level in the baseline of the source apportionment modeling used t o calculate the benefit

- per - ton estimates for this sector. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates population, and change in air quality. In other words, the pe rcentage of the population exposed to air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, which we are unable to quantif y for rules without rule

- specific air quality modeling, is the shift in exposure associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results fr om rules that had air quality modeling. Table 4

- 5 provides the percentage of the population exposed above and below two concentration benchmarks (i.e., LML and 1 standard deviation below the mean) in the modeled baseline. Figure 4

- 2 shows a bar chart of t he percentage of the population exposed to various air quality levels in the baseline, and Figure 4

- 3 shows a cumulative distribution function of the same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. Table 4 - 5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studies a


### Epidemiology Study Below 1 Std. Dev. Below AQ Mean At or Above 1 Std. Dev. Below AQ Mean Below LML At or Above LML Krewski et al. (2009) 89 % 11 % 7 % 93 % Lepeule et al. (2012) N/A N/A 23 % 67 %

a 

### One standard deviation below the mean is equivalent to the middle of the range between the 10 th 

### and 25 th



### percentile. For Krewski, the LML is 5.8 μg/m 3 

### and one standard deviation below the mean is 11.0 μg/m 3 

### . For Lepeule et al., the LML is 8 μg/m 3 

### and we do not have the data for one standard deviation below the mean. It is important to emphasize that although we have lower levels of confidence in levels below the LML for each study, the scientific evidence does not support the existence of a level below which health effects from exposure to PM 2.5 

### do not occur.

### 4

- 15 Figure 4 - 2 . Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### Exposure in the Baseline Among the populations exposed to PM 2.5 

### in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM 2.5 

### levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study 67% are exposed to PM 2.5 

### levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study 

### 4.2 Unquantified Benefits The mone tized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing th e benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits associated with the potential exposure to HAP, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment due to the absence of air quality modeling data for these pollutants in this analysis. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated with these emission reductions. In this section, we provide a qualitative description of these benefits. Below is a detailed qualitative assessment of health benefits related to multiple HAPs that have been reduced among including HAPs metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium ). 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

<1 1

- 2 2

- 3 3

- 4 4

- 5 5

- 6 6

- 7 7

- 8 8

- 9 9

- 10 10

- 11 11

- 12 12

- 13 13

- 14 14

- 15 15

- 16 16

- 17 17

- 18 18

- 19 19

- 20Percentage of Population Exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM 2.5 Level (μg/m 3 ) LML of Lepeule et al. (2012) study LML of Krewski et al. (2009) study

### 4

- 16 Figure 4 - 3. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM 2.5 

### Exposure in the Baseline Among the populations exposed to PM 2.5 

### in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM 2.5 

### levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study 67% are exposed to PM 2.5 

### levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study 

### 4.2.1 HAP Benefits Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by approximately 42% since 1990, the 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) predicts that most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that have the potential to cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c). 15 

### The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage. In order to identify and prioritize air t oxics, emission source types and locations that are of greatest potential concern, U.S. EPA conducts the NATA. 16 

### The

15 

### The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov /ttn/atw/nata2005/. 16 

### The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA.(2011)

. 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/n ata2005/

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Cumulative percentage of population exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM 2.5 Level (μg/m 3 ) LML of Krewski et al. (2009) study LML of Lepeule et al. (2012) study

### 4

- 17 most recent NATA was conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. NATA includes four steps: 1

. Compiling a national emis sions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources 2

. Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States 3

. Estimating population exposures across the United States 4

. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both cancer and noncancer effects Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is abou t 50 in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are formaldehyde and benzene. 17 

### Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while stationary, mobile and background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk. Noncancer health eff ects can result from chronic, 18 

### subchronic, 19 

### or acute 20 

### inhalation exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 NATA , about three

- fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects. Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer respiratory risk. Figures 4

- 4 and 4

- 5 depict the estimated census tract

- level carcinogenic risk and noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that l arge reductions in HAP emissions may not necessarily translate in to significant reductions in health risk because

17 

### Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including both quantitative (e.g., model

- to

- monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission inventories) judgments c an be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 18 

### Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database (http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used laboratory animal species). 19 

### Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically used laboratory animal species). 20 

### Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.

### 4

- 18 Figure 4 - 4. Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)
toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For example, a cetaldehyde mass emissions are more than double acrolein emissions on a national basis, according to EPA ’ s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is conside rably lower than that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than acetaldehyde. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass of the targeted emissions. Due to methodology and time limitations under the court

- ordered schedule, we were unable to estimate the benefits associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of these rules. In a few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA has qu antified the benefits of potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and non

- cancer risk (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995 ). In those analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) developed

### 4

- 19 Figure 4 - 5. Estimated Chronic Census Tract No ncancer (Respiratory) Risk from HAP exposure from outdoor sources (2005 NATA)
through risk assessment procedures. 21 

### These URFs are designed to be conservative, and as such, are more likely to represent the high end of the distribution of risk rather than a best or most likely estimate of risk. As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely to occur from a reduction in pollution, use of high

- end, conservative risk estimates would overestimate the benefits of the regulation. While we used high

- end risk estimates in past analyses, advice from the EPA ’ s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid using high

- end estimates in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2002 ). Since this time, EPA has continued to develop better methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP. As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act (U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with

21 

### The un it risk factor is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the probability of contracting cancer from a 70

- year lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m 3 

### of a pollutant.

### 4

- 20 reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009 ). Whi le reviewing the draft report, EPA ’ s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis concluded that “ the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of exposure - response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods ” (U.S. EPA

- SAB, 2008 ). In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations from this w orkshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and vulnerable populations, and improving dose

- response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011 ). In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in canc er incidences requires several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non

- fatal). Due to methodology and time limitations under the court

- ordered schedule, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by these rules. E PA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of risk. Below we describe the health effects associated with the HAP that would be reduc ed by this rulemaking. 4.2.1.1 Arsenic Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is found throughout the environment and is considered toxic through the oral, inhalation and dermal routes. Acute (short

- term) high

- level inhalation exposure to As dust or fumes has re sulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage); central and peripheral nervous system disorders have occurred in workers acutely exposed to inorganic As. Chronic (long

- term) inhalation exposure to ino rganic As in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Chronic inhalation can also lead to conjunctivitis, irritation of the throat and

### 4

- 21 respiratory tract and perforation of the nasal septum. 22 

### Chronic oral exposure has resulted in gastrointestinal effects, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver or kidney damage in humans. Inorganic As exposure in humans, by the inhalation route, has been shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer, while in gestion of inorganic As in humans has been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to bladder, liver, and lung cancer. EP A has classified inorganic As as a Group A, human carcinogen. 23 

### 4.2.1.2 Cadmium (Cd) 24 

### Breathing air with lower levels of Cd over long periods of time (for years) results in a build

- up of Cd in the kidney, and if sufficiently high, may result in kidney disease. Lung cancer has been found in some studies of workers exposed to Cd in the air and studies of rats that inhaled Cd. The U.S. DHHS has det ermined that Cd and Cd compounds are known human carcinogens. The IARC has determined that Cd is carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined that Cd is a probable human carcinogen. 4.2.1.3 Chlorine (Cl 2 

### ) The acute (short term) toxic effects of Cl 2 

### are primarily due to its corrosive properties. Chlorine is a strong oxidant that upon contact with water moist tissue (e.g., eyes, skin, and upper respiratory tract) can produce major tissue damage. 25 

### Chronic inhalation exposure to low concentrations of Cl 2 

### (1 to 10 parts p er million, ppm) may cause eye and nasal irritation, sore throat, and coughing. Chronic exposure to Cl 2 

### , usually in the workplace, has been reported to cause corrosion of the teeth. Inhalation of higher concentrations of Cl 2 

### gas (greater than 15 ppm)
can r apidly lead to respiratory distress with airway constriction and accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema). Exposed individuals may have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue discoloration of the skin, wheezing, Rales or hemoptysis (coughing up blood or blood

- stain

22 

### Agency for Toxic Sub stances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Arsenic. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available on the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg168.html#bookmark02> 23 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System File for Arsenic. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm. 24 

### Age ncy for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Public Health Statement for Cadmium

. CAS# 1306

- 19

- 0. Atlanta , GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/P HS.asp?id=46&tid=15 >. 25 

### Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=198&tid=36.

### 4

- 22 sputum). Intoxication with high concentrations of Cl 2 

### may induce lung collapse. Exposure to Cl 2 

### can lead to reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), a chemical irritant

- induced type of asthma. Dermal exposure to Cl 2 

### may cause i rritation, burns, inflammation and blisters. EPA has not classified Cl 2 

### with respect to carcinogenicity. 4.2.1.4 Chromium (Cr) 26 Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent Cr (Cr+3) or hexavalent Cr (Cr+6). The respiratory tract is the major target organ for C r +6 

### toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure to Cr +6 

### , while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposures. Limited human studies suggest that Cr +6 

### inhalation exposure may be associated with complications during pregnancy and childbirth, but there are no supporting data from animal studies report ing reproductive effects from inhalation exposure to Cr +6



### . Human and animal studies have clearly established the carcinogenic potential of Cr +6 

### by the inhalation route, resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. EPA has classified Cr +6 

### as a Group A, hu man carcinogen. Trivalent Cr is less toxic than Cr +6



### . The respiratory tract is also the major target organ for Cr +3 

### toxicity, similar to Cr +6



### . EPA has not classified Cr +3 

### with respect to carcinogenicity. 4.2.1.5 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Hydrogen chloride is a corro sive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous membranes of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour. 27 

### The greatest impact is on the upper resp iratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, blue coloring of the skin, and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposu re to HCl can lead to RADS, a chemically

- or irritant

- induced type of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to

26 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Chromium VI. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 27 

### Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.

### 4

- 23 evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for carcinogenic effects. 28 

### 4.2.1.6 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) 29 

### Hydrogen cyanide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure an d may cause abrupt onset of profound central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects, leading to death within minutes. Exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide may produce eye irritation, headache, confusion, nausea, and vomitin g followed in some cases by coma and death. Hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant. By binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase, it prevents the utilization of oxygen in cellular metabolism. The central nervous system and myocardium are particul arly sensitive to the toxic effects of cyanide. 4.2.1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 30 

### Acute (short

- term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long

- term) oral exposure t o fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause dental fluorosis. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women oc cupationally exposed to fluoride via inhalation. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity. 4.2.1.8 Lead (Pb) 31 

### The main target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Long

term exposure of adults to Pb at work has resulted in de creased performance in some tests that measure functions of the nervous system. Lead exposure may also cause weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles. Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood pressure, particularly in middle

- aged and older people. Lead exposure may also cause anemia.

28 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Integrated R isk Information System File of Hydrogen Chloride. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at .http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. 29 

### All health effects language for this section came from: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) ( CAS# : 7782

- 50

- 5). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Mhmi/mmg8.html#bookmark02

. 30 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated wit h Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. EPA/600/8

- 89/002F. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 1989. 31 

### Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Re gistry (ATSDR). 2007. P ublic Health Statement for Lead. CAS# : 7439

- 92

- 1 . Atlanta , GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/phs13.html >.

### 4

- 24 Children are more sensitive to the health effects of Pb than adults. No safe blood Pb level in children has been determined. At lower levels of exposure, Pb can affect a child ’ s mental and physical growth. Fetuses exposed to Pb in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood also may slow mental development and cause lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that these effect s may persist beyond childhood. There are insufficient data from epidemiologic studies alone to conclude that Pb causes cancer (is carcinogenic) in humans. The DHHS has determined that Pb and Pb compounds are reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens based on limited evidence from studies in humans and sufficient evidence from animal studies, and the EPA has determined that Pb is a probable human carcinogen. 4.2.1.9 Manganese (Mn) 32 

### Health effects in humans have been associated with both deficiencies and exces s intakes of Mn. Chronic exposure to high levels of Mn by inhalation in humans results primarily in central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye

- hand coordination were affected in chronically

- exposed workers. Mangan ism , ch aracterized by feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers afflicted with M angan ism attributed to inhalation exposures. The EPA has classified Mn in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans. 4.2.1.10 Mercury (Hg) Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury (MeHg). Because Hg is a persistent pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially the tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS Study was issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg on human health (NRC, 2000)

. 33 

### Many of the peer

- revie wed articles cited in this section are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other related and more recent publications to complement the material summarized by the NRC in 2000.

32 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Manganese. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 33 

### National Research Council (NRC). 2000 . Toxicological Effects of Methylmercur y . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

### 4

- 25 In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an RfD (NRC, 2000); in particular NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or neuro psychological tests. The NAS report noted that studies in animals reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain development and memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology studies. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoint s for an RfD are associated with the ability of children to learn and to succeed in school. They concluded the following: “ The population at highest risk is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy. The committe e concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school. ” The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 2000. Based on these
an d other studies, the NRC concluded that “ Although the data base is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the cardiovascular system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals. ” The NRC also stated that “ additional studies are needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life. ” Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000 . The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose

- response assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg exposures, as there is no consensus among scientists on the dose

- response functions for these effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as to the association between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. The pharmacokinetics of some of the exposure measures (such as toenail Hg levels) are not well understood. The studies have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well

- established neurotoxicity data base. The Mercury Study 34 

### noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but is capable of causing chromosomal damage in a number of experimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence that hum an exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for potential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River region in Brazil (Amorim et al., 2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage

34 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress , EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2009

– 0234

– 3054. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm>.

### 4

- 26 in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes 35 

### . Long

- term MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur through consumption of f ish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg exposures similar to and above those seen in the Faroes and Seychelles populations. Although exposure to some forms of Hg can result in a decreas e in immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited (NRC, 2000) 36



### . Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a “ possible ” human carcinogen by the International Agency for Rese arch on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in IRIS (U.S. EPA, 2002) 37 , 38 

### . The existing evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic effects in humans from low

- dose chronic exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies have found no significant association between Hg exposure and overall cancer incidence, although a few studies have shown an association between Hg exposure and specific types of cancer incidence (e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000). There is also some evidence of re productive and renal toxicity in humans from MeHg exposure. However, overall, human data regarding reproductive, renal, and hematological toxicity from MeHg are very limited and are based on either studies of the two high

- dose poisoning episodes in Iraq an d Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological studies of chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this analysis. 4.2.1.11 Nickel (Ni) 39 

### Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation exposure to Ni. No information is available regardin g the reproductive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but

35 

### Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 72(4): 497

- 507. 36 

### Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Integrated Risk Information Sys tem (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm 38 

### International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Eval uation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. Br. J. Indust. Me d. 18(Oct.):303

- 308 (as cited in NRC 2000). 39 

### Nickel (IARC Summary & Evaluation , Volume 49, 1990), Please check if there are relevant to this sectorhttp://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol49/nickel.html

### 4

- 27 animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal studies have reported an increased risk of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to Ni refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. The EPA has classified nickel subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human carcinogen 40 , 41
. 

### The IARC has classified Ni compounds as carcinogenic to humans. 4.2.1.12 Selenium (Se) 42 

### Acute exposure to elemental Se, hydrogen selenide, and selenium d ioxide (SeO 2 

### ) by inhalation results primarily in respiratory effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, pulmonary edema, severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. One Se compound, selenium sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. The EPA has classified elemental Se as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen. 4.2.2 Additional SO 2 

### Health Co - Benefits In addition to being a precursor to PM 2.5 

### , SO 2 

### emissions are also associated with a variety of adverse health effects associated with direct exposure. Unfortunately, we were unable to estimate the health co - benefits associated with reduced SO 2 

### in this analysis because we do not have air quality modeling data available. Therefore, this analysis only quantifies and monetizes the PM 2.5 

### co - benefits associated with the reductions in SO 2 

### emissions. Following an extensive evaluation of health evidenc e from epidemiologic and laboratory studies, the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur

— Health Criteria (SO 2 

### ISA) concluded that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short

- term exposure to SO 2 

### (U.S. EPA, 2008a) . The immediate effect of SO 2 

### on the respiratory system in humans is bronchoconstriction. Asthmatics are more sensitive to the effects of SO 2 

### likely resulting from preexisting inflammation associated with this disease. A clear concentration

response relati onship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies following exposures to SO 2 

### at concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, both in terms of increasing severity of effect and percentage of asthmatics adversely affected. Based on our review of this information, we identified four short

- term morbidity endpoints that the SO 2 

### ISA identified as a “ causal relationship ” : asthma exacerbation, respiratory

- related emergency department visits, and

40 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated R isk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Subsulfide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 41 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Carbonyl . National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 42 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Selenium and Compounds. National Center for Environmental Assessm ent, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.

### 4

- 28 respiratory

- related hospitalizations. The differing evidence and associated strength of the evidence for these different effects is described in detail in the SO 2 

### ISA. The SO 2 

### ISA also concluded that the relationship between short

- term SO 2 

### exposure and premature mortality was

“ suggestive of a causal relationship ” because it is di fficult to attribute the mortality risk effects to SO 2 

### alone. Although the SO 2 

### ISA stated that studies are generally consistent in reporting a relationship between SO 2 

### exposure and mortality, there was a lack of robustness of the observed associations to a djustment for pollutants. We did not quantify these co - benefits due to data constraints. 4.2.3 Visibility Impairment Co - Benefits Reducing secondary formation of PM 2.5 

### would improve levels visibility in the U.S. because suspended particles and gases degrade visib ility by scattering and absorbing light (U.S. EPA, 2009). Fine particles with significant light

- extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Visibility has direct significance to people ’ s en joyment of daily activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility increases the quality of life where individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational activities. Particulate sulfate is the dominant source of regional haze i n the eastern U.S. and particulate nitrate is an important contributor to light extinction in California and the upper Midwestern U.S., particularly during winter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Previous analyses ( U.S. EPA, 2011a) show that visibility benefits can be a significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are not unable to estimate visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether the emission reductions associated with this rule would be likely to have a significant impa ct on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 4.3 References Abt Associates, Inc. 2012. BenMAP User ’ s Manual Appendices . Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/models/BenMAPAppendicesOct2012.pdf>. Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “ The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton o f air pollution. ” Air Qual Atmos Health 2:169

– 176. Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “ Characterizing the PM2.5

- related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S. ” Environment International 49 41

– 151. Gwinn, M.R ., J . Craig, D.A . Axelrad, R . Cook, C . Dockins, N . Fann, R . Fegley, D.E . Guinnup, G

. Helfand, B . Hubbell, S.L . Mazur, T . Palma, R.L . Smith , J . Vandenberg, and

### 4

- 29 B

. Sonawane. 2011. “ Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants

— summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations. ” Environ Health Perspect

. Jan; 119(1): p. 125

- 30. Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study

— Health Benefits of Benzene Reductions in Houston, 1990

– 2020 . Final Report, July 14, 2009. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul y_2009.pdf>. Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the Concentration

- Response Relationship Between PM 2.5 

### Expo sure and Mortality . Prepared for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_tsd_expert_inte rview_summari es.pdf>. Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow

- up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. “ Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow

- Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. ” Environ Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965

- 70. Nationa l Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A

- 4: Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC. Avail able on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a

- 4.html. Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. ” Environ. Sci. Technol ., 42(7):2268

- 2274. Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long

- term variability of the composition of the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network . CIRA Report, ISSN 0737

- 5352

- 32, Colorado State University. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at <http://www.reg

- markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>.

### 4

- 30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240

- R

- 00

- 003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency

- Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2002. Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of Dose

- Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA

- SAB

- EC

- WKSHP

- 02

- 001. January. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0 05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa

- g.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final) . EPA/600/R

- 05/004aF

- cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. February. Available on the Internet at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008 a . Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides

— Health Criteria (Final Report)

. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available at : < http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843>. U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen

- Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/reco rdisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur

–

Ecological Criteria National (Final Report ). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R

- 08/139. December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) . EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

– RTP Division. December. Available on the Internet at < http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546 >. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for Car bon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R

- 09/019F. January. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration

Response Function for PM 2.5 

### - related Mortality . Research Triangle Park, NC. June. Available on the Internet at < www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/ threshol ds tsd.pdf>.

### 4

- 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper: SAB Review Draft

. National Center for Environmental Economics December . Available on the Internet at < http://yose mite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE

- 0563

- 1.pdf/$file/EE

- 0563

- 1.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . EPA 240

- R

- 10

- 001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy Econom ics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE

- 0568

- 50.pdf/$file/EE

- 0568

- 50.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 . Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA

- 452/R

- 11

- 011. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Stand ards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters

. February. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (U.S. EPA). 2012a. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

. EPA

- 452/R

- 12

- 003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. Decemb er. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Petroleum Refineries New Source Performance Standards Ja. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. June. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/refineries_nsps_ja_final_ria.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Technical Support Document: Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reduci ng PM 2.5 

### Precursors from 17 sectors . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2008. Characterizing Uncertainty in Particulate Matter Bene fits Using Expert Elicitation. EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 002. July. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/43B91173651AED9E85257487004EA6C B/$File/EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 002

- unsigned.pdf>.

### 4

- 32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Adviso ry Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 200 0. An SAB Report on EPA ’ s White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction. EPA

- SAB

- EEAC

- 00

- 013. July. Available on the Internet at < http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/41334524148BCCD6852571A70 0516498/$F ile/eeacf013.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 20 04 c . Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Response to Agency Request on Cessation Lag. EPA

- COUNCIL

- LTR

- 05

- 001. December. Available on the Internet at < http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/39F44B098DB49F3C8525717 0005293E0/ $File/council_ltr_05_001.pdf >. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2008. Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990

– 2020 . EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 001. July. Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sab product.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8 3/$File/EPA

- COUNCIL

- 08

- 001

- unsigned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2009b. Review of EPA ’ s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External Rev iew Draft, December 2008) . EPA

- COUNCIL

- 09

- 008. May. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86 e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 09

- 008

- unsigned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2009c. Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review Draft, July 2009) . EPA

- CASAC

- 10

- 001. November. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODU CT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86 e/151B1F83B023145585257678006836B9/$File/EPA

- CASAC

- 10

- 001

- unsigned.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 20 10a. Review of EPA ’ s DRAFT Health Benefits of the Second Section 81 2 Prospective Study of the Clean Air Act . EPA

- COUNCIL

- 10

- 001. June. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/9288428b8eeea4c885257242006935a3/59e0 6b6c5ca66597852575e7006c5d09!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2.>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). 2011. Review of Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper (December 10, 2010). EPA

- SAB

- 11

- 011 July

. Available on the Internet at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabprodu ct.nsf/298E1F50F844BC23852578DC0059A616/$ File/EPA

- SAB

- 11

- 011

- unsigned.pdf>.

### 5

- 1 SECTION 5 ECONOMIC IMPAC T ANALYSIS EPA prepares an EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of the social costs of using resources to comply with a regulation (EPA, 201 0 ). The social costs can then be compared with estimated social benefits (as presented in Section 4). As noted in EPA ’ s (2010 ) Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses , several tools are available to e stimate social costs and range from simple direct compliance cost methods to the development of a more complex market analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) and economic welfare changes (e.g., changes in consumer and producer surplus). The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) adopted a market

- level analysis described in the Office ’ s re source manual (EPA, 1999a ). The market approach uses a single

- period static partial

- equilibrium model to comp are prepolicy market baselines with expected post policy outcomes in these markets. Key measures in this analysis include

■ 

### market

- level effects (market prices, changes in domestic production and consum ption, and international trade) and

■ 

### social costs and the ir distribution between producers and consumers

. We also assessed the impacts on employment in the brick industry through a qualitative discussion and a quantitative analysis that is linked to the results of the market

- level analysis. Finally, we assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of large and small ultimate parent companies that own affected BSCP facilities. To do this, we used a screening analysis required to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

. 5.1 Market Analysis The partial

- equilibrium analysis includes a market model that simulates how stakeholders (consumers and firms) might respond to the additional regulatory program costs. EPA used a perfectly competitive regional market model that accounts for the fact that brick shipments are not likely to be shipped long distances because of weight and transportation costs. In regional markets, it is more likely that only a few firms offer similar brick products and other market structures may be applicable (i.e., oligopoly). If market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of the proposed rule. Appendix A provides additional details about the economic model equations and parameters.

### 5

- 2 5.1.1 Market - Level Results Market

- lev el impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. As shown in Table 5

- 1 , the average national price under the proposed standards increase s by 1.4 % , or $3.29 per 1,000 SBE , while overall domestic production falls by 1.1% , or 38 million bricks per year. These values are lower than the alternate approach: the average national price increase for the alternate standards is 2.0% and brick U.S. brick product ion falls by about 55 million bricks.
P rice increases are the highest i n regions with high unit compliance costs. For example, the East North Central market price increase ($8.43 per 1,000 SBE ) is associated with higher per - unit complia nce costs ($18.72 pe r 1,000 SBE). Under the proposed standards, one region does not include any facilities with incremental compliance costs (New England). As a result, there are no market

- level changes. For all of the census regions, t he average regional price increase s betw een 0% and 2.8 % . Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 2.2% and 0 to 14 million bricks per year. Under the alternate standards, t he average regional price increase s between 0% and 3.9 % . Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 3.1 %, or 0 to 21 million bricks per year. 5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates Under the proposed standards, the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on $ 11.4 million (2011$) of the rule ’ s costs to U.S. h ouseholds in the form of higher prices (Table 5

- 1 ). Existing U.S. industries ’ surplus falls by $9.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $ 20.6 million. Under the alternate standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is $10 million higher ($30.5 million). Because higher brick prices reduce c onsumption, the estimated compliance costs are lower than the engineering cost estimate that does not account for price responses. However, the differences are very small (i.e., less than 0.01%). 5.2 Employment Impacts of the Proposed Rule Executive Order 135 63 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job creation and employment. According to the Executive Order, “ our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, inn ovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science ” (Executive Order 13563, 2011 ). Although standard benefit

- cost analy ses have not typically5-3 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Propo sed BSCP NESHAP

Census Region Incremental Unit Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE) Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:
Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Consumer Surplus Producer Surplus Total Surplus Proposed Standards New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $3.55 $1.36 0.4% −703 −0.3% −$0.3 −$0.2 −$0.5 East North Central $18.72 $8.43 2.8% −6,364 −2.2% −$2.4 −$1.9 −$4.3 West North Central $6.81 $3.79 1.4% −2,000 −1.1% −$0.7 −$0.6 −$1.2 South Atlantic $6.17 $3.15 1.4% −14,228 −1.1% −$4.1 −$3.3 −$7.4 East South Central $6.17 $3.43 1.8% −5,727 −1.5% −$1.3 −$1.1 −$2.4 West South Central $5.15 $2.86 1.2% −8,898 −1.0% −$2.5 −$2.0 −$4.6 Mountain $1.23 $0.34 0.1% −86 −0.1% $0.0 $0.0 −$0.1 Pacific $2.35 $1.11 0.2% −120 −0.2% −$0.1 −$0.1 −$0.1 U.S. Average/Total $6.55 $3.29 1.4%

− 38,126

− 1.1%

− $11.4

− $9.1

− $20.6 ( continued)5-4 

### Table 5 - 1. Estimated Market Impacts of Proposed BSCP NESHAP (continued)

Census Region Incremental Unit Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE) Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:
Absolute Percent Absolute Percent Consumer Surplus Producer Surplus Total Surplus Alternate Standards New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Middle Atlantic $5.39 $2.07 0.6% −1,068 −0.5% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.8 East North Central $26.19 $11.79 3.9% −8,901 −3.1% −$3.3 −$2.6 −$5.9 West North Central $10.54 $5.85 2.1% −3,093 −1.7% −$1.1 −$0.9 −$1.9 South Atlantic $8.99 $4.60 2.0% −20,743 −1.6% −$6.0 −$4.8 −$10.7 East South Central $9.13 $5.07 2.7% −8,473 −2.2% −$2.0 −$1.6 −$3.5 West South Central $7.44 $4.13 1.8% −12,854 −1.4% −$3.7 −$2.9 −$6.6 Mountain $6.05 $1.68 0.5% −424 −0.4% −$0.2 −$0.2 −$0.3 Pacific $11.02 $5.21 0.9% −563 −0.8% −$0.4 −$0.3 −$0.7 U.S. Average/Total $9.74 $4.90 2.0% −56,118 −1.6% −$17.0 −$13.5 −$30.5

### 5

- 5 included a separate analysis of regulation

- induced employment impacts, 43 

### during periods of sustained high unemployment, employment impacts are of particular concern and questions may arise about their existence and magnitude

. This chapter provides a conceptual framework for considering the potential influence of environmental regulation on employment in the U.S. economy and discusses the limited empirical literature that is available. The chapter then discuss es the potential e mployment imp acts in the BSCP industry, as well as the environmental protection sector ( e.g. , for construction, manufacture, installation and operation of needed pollution control equipment )

. Section 5 .2 .1 describes the economic theory used for analyzing
r egulation

- induced employment impacts , discussing how standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on labor demand for regulated firms. Section 5

. 2.2 presents an overview of the peer

- reviewed literature relevant to evaluating the effect of environmental reg ulation on employment. Section 5.2.3 discusses macroeconomic net employment effects. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an indepe ndent expert panel on economy

- wide impacts, including employment effects. Section 5.2.4 addresses the particular influence of this proposed rule on employment. Finally, Section 5

. 2.5 offer s several conclusions. 5.2.1 Theory The effects of environmental regulatio n on employment are difficult to disentangle from other economic changes and business decisions that affect employment, over time and across regions and industries

. L abor markets respond to regulation in complex ways . That response depends on the elasticit ies of demand and supply for labor and the degree of labor market imperfections (e.g. , wage stickiness, long

- term unemployment) . The unit of measurement (e.g., number of jobs, types of job hours worked, or earnings) may affect observability of that respons e . Net employment impacts are composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in different areas of the economy (i.e., the directly regulated sector, upstream and downstream sectors, and the pollution abatement sector) and over time. In light of these di fficulties, e conomic theory provides a constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments. In this section, we briefly describe theory relevant to the impact of regulation on labor demand at the regulated firm, in the regulated industry, and in the environmental protection sector and highlight the importance of considering potential effects of regulation on labor supply, a topic addressed further in a subsequent section.

43 

### L abor expenses do, however, contribute toward total costs in EPA’s standard benefit

- cost analys e s.

### 5

- 6 Neocl assical microeconomic theory describes how profit

- maximizing firms adjust their use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions. 44 

### In this framework, labor is one of many inputs to production, along with capital, energy, and mat erials. In competitive output markets, profit

- maximizing firms take prices as given and choose quantities of inputs and outputs to maximize profit. Factor demand at the firm, then, is determined by input and output prices. 45 , 46 

### Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) have specifically tailored one version of the standard neoclassical model to analyze how environmental regulations affect labor demand decisions. 47 

### En vironmental regulation is modeled as effectively requiring certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital investment, that would not be freely chosen by profit

- maximizing/cost

- minimizing firms. In Berman and Bui ’ s (2001, p. 274

– 75) the oretical model, the change in a firm ’ s labor demand arising from a change in regulation is decomposed into two main components: output and substitution effects. 48 

### For the output effect, by affecting the marginal cost of production, regulation affects the pr ofit

- maximizing quantity of output. The output effect describes how, if labor intensity of production is held constant, a decrease in output generally leads to a decrease in labor demand. However, as noted by Berman and Bui, although it is often assumed th at regulation increases marginal cost, and thereby reduces output, it need not be the case. A regulation could induce a firm to upgrade to less polluting and more efficient equipment that lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a case, outpu t could theoretically increase. The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the labor intensity of production. Although increased environmental regulation generally results in higher utilization of production factors such as pollution control equipment and energy to operate that equipment, the resulting impact on labor demand is ambiguous. For example, e quipment inspection requirements, specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that alter the

44 

### See Layard and Walters (1978) , a standard microeconomic th eory textbook, for a discussion. 45 

### See Hamermesh (1993) , Chapter 2, for a derivation of the firm’s labor demand function from cost

- minimization. 46 

### In this framework, labor demand is a function of quantity of output and prices (of both output s and input s )

. 47 

### Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a cost

- minimization framework, which is a special case of profit

- maximization with fixe d output quantities. 48 

### The authors also discuss a third component, the impact of regulation on factor prices but conclude that this effect is unlikely to be important for large competitive factor markets, such as labor and capital. Morgenstern, Pizer, and S hih (2002) used a very similar model, but they break the employment effect into three parts: 1) the demand effect, 2) the cost effect, and 3) the factor

- shift effect.

### 5

- 7 production pr ocess may affect the number of workers necessary to produce a unit of output. Berman and Bui (2001) modeled the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on “ quasi

fixed ” pollution control equipment and expenditures that are required by the regulation and the corresponding change in labor intensity of production. Within the production theory framework, when levels of a given set of inputs are fixed by external constraints such as regulatory requirements, rather than allowing the firm to freely choose all inputs under cost

- minimization alone, these inputs are described as “ quasi

- fixed. ” For example, materials would be a “ quasi

fixed ” factor if there were specific requirement s for landfill liner construction, but the footprint of the landfill was flexible. Brown and Christensen (1981) developed a partial static equilibrium model of production with quasi

- fixed factors, which Berman and Bui ( 2001) extended to analyze environmental regulations with technology

- based standards. In summary, because the output and substitution effects may be both positive, both negative, or some combination, standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a d efinitive net effect of regulation on labor demand at regulated firms. Operating within the bounds of standard neoclassical theory, however, rough estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study, specific to the regulated firms, when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. The available literature illustrates some of the difficulties for empirical estimation: studies sometimes rely on confidential plant

- level employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau, possibl y combined with pollution abatement expenditure data that are too dated to be reliably informative. In addition, the most commonly used empirical methods in the literature do not permit the estimation of net effects. These studies will be discussed at grea ter length later in this chapter. The above describes a conceptual framework for analyzing potential employment effects at a particular firm within a regulated industry. It is important to emphasize that employment impacts at a particular firm will not ne cessarily represent impacts for the overall industry; therefore, the theoretic approach requires some adjustment when applied at the industry level. As stated, the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how the output and substitution effects interact. 49 

### At the industry level, labor demand will be more responsive when (1) the price elasticity of demand for the product is high, (2) other factors of production can be easily substituted for labor, (3) the supply of other factors is highly elastic, or (4) labor costs are a large share of the total costs of production. 50 

### So, for example, if all firms in the industry are

49 

### On Marshall’s laws of derived demand, see Eh renberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4. 50 

### See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), p. 108.

### 5

- 8 faced with the same compliance costs of regulation and product demand is inelastic, then industry output may not change much at all, and output of individual firms may only be slightly changed. 51 

### In this case, the output effect may be small, while the substitution effect will still depend on the degree of substitutability or complementarity between factors of production. Continuing the e xample, if new pollution control equipment requires labor to install and operate, labor is more of a complement than a substitute. In this case, the substitution effect may be positive, and if the output effect is small or zero, the total effect may then b e positive. As with the potential effects for an individual firm, theory alone is unable to determine the sign or magnitude of industry

- level regulatory effects on labor. Determining these signs and magnitudes requires additional sector

- specific empirical study. To conduct such targeted research would require estimates of product demand elasticity; production factor substitutability; supply elasticity of production factors; and the share of total costs contributed by wages, by industry, and perhaps even by facility. For environmental rules, many of these data items are not publicly available, would require significant time and resources to access confidential U.S. Census data for research, and also would not be necessary for other components of a typical RIA

. In addition to changes to labor demand in the regulated industry, net employment impacts encompass changes within the environmental protection sector and, potentially, in other related sectors, as well. Environmental regulations often create increased d emand for pollution control equipment and services needed for compliance. This increased demand may increase revenue and employment in the environmental protection industry

. At the same time, the regulated industry is purchasing the equipment, and these co sts may affect labor demand at regulated firms. Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of compliance actions on employment across multiple sectors or industries

. On the one hand, i f the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large

- scale environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on aggregate net employment. 52 

### Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated from one productive use to another (e.g., from producing electricity or steel to producing pollution abatement equi pment ). Theory supports the argument that, in the case of full employment, the net national employment effects from environmental regulation are likely to be small and transitory (e.g., as workers move from one

51 

### This discussion draws from Berman and Bui (2001) , p. 293. 52 

### Full employment is a conceptual target for the economy where everyone who wants to wor k and is available to do so at prevailing wages is actively employed.

### 5

- 9 job to another)

. 53 

### On the other hand, if the e conomy is operating at less than full employment , economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or magnitude of the net impact of environmental regulation on employment; it could cause either a short

- run net increase or short

run net decrease ( Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011 ). An important fundamental research question is how to accommodate unemployment as a structural feature in economic models. This feature may be important in evaluating the impact of large

- scale regulation on employment (Smith, 2012 ). Affected sector s may experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some workers may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers. It is important to recognize that these adjustment costs can entail local labor disruptions, and although the net change in the national workforce is expected to b e small, localized reductions in employment can still have negative impacts on individuals and communities just as localized increases can have positive impacts

. Although the current discussion focuses on labor demand effects, environmental regulation may also affect labor supply. In particular, pollution and other environmental risks may affect labor productivity 54 

### or employees ’ ability to work. Although there is an accompanying, and parallel, theoretical approach to examining impacts on labor supply, simil ar to labor demand, it is even more difficult and complex to study labor supply empirically. There is a small, nascent empirical literature using more detailed labor and environmental data and quasi

experimental techniques that is starting to find traction on this question. These ar e described in Section 5.2.6. To summarize the discussion in this section, economic theory provides a framework for analyzing the impacts of environmental regulation on employment. The net employment effect incorporates expected employment changes (both positive and negative) in the regulated sector, the environmental protection sector, and other relevant sectors. Using economic theory, labor demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decompose d into output and substitution effects. With these potentially competing forces, under standard neoclassical theory estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study specific to the regulated firms and firms in the environmental protect ion sector and other relevant

53 

### Arrow et al. (1996) ; see discussion on bottom of p. 8. In practice, distributional impacts on individual workers can be important, as discussed in later parag raphs of this section. 54 

### For example, Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012)

.

### 5

- 10 sectors when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. Finally, economic theory suggests that labor supply effects are also possible. In the next section, we discuss the available empirical literature. 5.2.2 C urrent State of Knowledge Based on the Peer - Reviewed Literature In the labor economics literature, an extensive body of peer - reviewed empirical work analyz es various aspects of labor demand, relying on the above theoretical framework. 55 

### This work focuses p rimarily on the effects of employment policies , for example, labor taxes and minimum wage. 56 

### In contrast, the peer - reviewed empirical literature specifically estimating employment effects of environmental regulations is very limited

. In this section, w e pre sent an overview of the latter. As discussed in the preceding section on theory, determining the direction of employment effects in regulated industries is challenging because of the complexity of the output and substitution effects. Complying with a new o r more stringent regulation may require additional inputs, including labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms (and firms in other relevant industries) in their production processes. S everal empirical studi es , including Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et al

. (2002) , suggest that net employment impacts may be zero or slightly positive but small even in the regulated sector. Other research s uggests that more highly regulated counties may generate fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone , 20 02 ; Walker , 20 11 ). However, because t hese latter studies compare more regulated to less regulated coun ties , they overstate the net national impact of regulation to the extent that regulation causes plants to locate in one area of the country rather than another. List et al . (2003) found some evidence that this type of geographic relocation may be occurring. Overall , the peer

- reviewed literature does not contain evidence that environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in the long run across the whole economy. Environmental regulatio ns seem likely to affect the environmental protection sector earlier than the regulated industry. Rules are usually announced well in advance of their effective dates and then typically provide a period of time for firms to invest in technolog ies and proce ss changes to meet the new requirements. When a regulation is promulgated, the initial response of firms is often to order pollution control equipment and services to enable compl iance when the regulation becomes effective. This can produce a short

- term in crease in labor demand for specialized workers within the environmental protection sector , particularly workers involved in

55 

### Again, see Hamermesh (1993) for a detailed treatment. 56 

### See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000) , Chapter 4: “ Employment Effects: Empirical Estimates ” for a concise overview.

### 5

- 11 the design, construction, testing, installation, and operation of the new pollution control equipment required by the regulation (se e Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011 ; Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna, 2008 ). Estimates of short

- term increases in demand for specialized labor within the environmental protection s ector have been prepared for several EPA regulations in the past, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (U.S. EPA, 2011b ). 5.2.3 Regulated Sector Determining the direction of net employment effects of regulation on indust ry is challenging. Two papers that present a formal theoretic model of the underlying profit

maximizing/cost

- minimizing problem of the firm are Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002 ) mentioned above. Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to estimate the effect on employment of environmental regulations in California. Their model empirically examines how an incre ase in local air quality regulation affects manufacturing employment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the SCAQMD enacted some of the country ’ s most stringent air quality regulations. Using SCAQMD ’ s local air quality regulations, Berman and Bui identif ied the effect of environmental regulations on net employment in the regulated industries. 57 

### In particular, they compare d changes in e mployment in affected plants to those in other plants in the same 4

- digit Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) industries but in regions not subject to the local regulations. 58 

### The authors f ou nd that “ while regulations do impose large costs, they have a limited effect on employment ” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269 ). Their conclusion is that local air quality regulation “ probably increased labor demand slightly ” but that

“ the employment effects of both compliance and inc reased stringency are fairly precisely estimated zeros , even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included ” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269 ). 59 

### In their view, the limited effects likely arose because 1) the regulations applied disproportionately to capital

- intensive plants with relatively little employment, 2) the plants sold to local markets where competitors were subject to the same regulations (so that sales were relatively unaffected), and 3) abatement inputs served as complements to employment.

57 

### Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) , this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the environmental protecti on sector. 58 

### Berman and Bui include over 40 4

- digit SIC industries in their sample. 59 

### Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated impact of regulation on employment. This employment effect is not included in Morgenstern et al. (2002)

.

### 5

- 12 Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) developed a similar structural approach to Berman and Bui ’ s, but thei r empirical application use d pollution abatement expenditures from 1979 to 1991 at the plant level, including air, water, and solid waste, to estimate net employment effects in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum r efining). Thus, in contrast to Berman and Bui (2001) , this study identifie d employment effects by examining differences in abatement expenditures rather than geographical differences in stringency. They conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net employment in those sectors. 

### 5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector The long

- term effects of a regulation on the environmental protection sector , which provides goods and services that help protect the environment to the regulated sector , are difficult to assess. Employment in the industry supplying pollution control equipment or services is likely to increase with the increased demand from the regulated industry for increased pollution control. 60 

### A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (2013) shows that domestic environmental services revenues grew by 41% between 2000 and 2010. According to U.S. Department of Commerce (2010) data, by 2008, there were 119,000 environmental technology (ET) firms generating approximately $300 billion in revenues domestically, producing $43.8 billion in exports, and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in the United States . Air pollution control accounted for 18% of the domestic ET market and 16% of exports. Small and medium

size companies represent 99% of private ET firms, producing 20% of total revenue (OEEI, 2010 )

. 5.2.5 Labor Supply Impact s As described above, t he small empirical literature on employment effects of environmental regulations focuses primarily on labor demand impacts. However, t here is a nascent literature focusing on regulation

- induced effects on labor supply, though this li terature remains very limited because of empirical challenges. This new research uses innovative methods and new data and indicates that there may be observable impacts of environmental regulation on labor supply, even at pollution levels below mandated re gulatory thresholds. Many researchers have found that work

- loss days and sick days, as well as mortality, are reduced when air pollution is reduced (EPA, 2011 a ). EPA ’ s s tudy of the benefits and costs of implementing the

60 

### See Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna (2008) , for example, and U.S. Department of Commerce (2010)

.

### 5

- 13 clean air regulations used these studies to predict how increased labor availability would increase the labor supply and improve productivity and the economy (EPA, 2011 a).Another literature estimates how w orker productivity improves at the work site when pollution is reduced. Graff Zivin and Neidell ( 2013 ) review ed this literature, focusing on how health and human capital may be affected by environmental quality, particularly air pollution. In previous research , Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012) use d detailed worker

- level productivity data from 2009 and 2010, pair ed with local ozone air quality monitori ng data for one large California farm growing multiple crops , with a piece

- rate payment structure. Their quasi

- experimental structure identifie d a n effect of daily variation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They f ou nd “ that ozone levels well belo w federal air quality standards have a significant impact on productivity: a 10 parts per billion (ppb) decrease in ozone concentrations increases worker productivity by 5.5 percent. ” (Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012, p. 3654 ). Such studies are a compelling start to exploring this new area of research, considering the benefits of improved air quality on productivity, alongside the existing literature exploring the labor demand effects of environmental regulations

. 5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector and labor supply impacts. These challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment estimates for the whole economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, compliance spending, and environmental benefits propagate through the macro

- economy. Quantitative estimates are further complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have very little sectoral detail and usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling
econom y - wide impacts, including employment effects. 5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation In 2011, t he ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, b ). Approximately 12 million production labor hours were used to produce BSCP in 2011. For this analysis, EPA quantified a subset of possible types of employment e ffects associated with the regulation:

■ 

### additional labor requirements (full

- time equivalents [FTEs]) associated with meeting the new regulation

### 5

- 14 ■ 

### e mpl oyment effect of facilities that may exit the BSCP industry As shown in Table 5

- 2, EPA estimates that the regulation will require an a dditional 133,000 labor hours per year to operate control devices, or approximately a 1.1 % increase. This is equivalent to about 64 additional FTEs. The total estimated cost of these additional labor requirements is $3.12 million per year. Table 5 - 2 . Estimated Additional Labor Requirements Total Annual Labor Cost ($ million) Required to Operate Control Devices Total Annual Labor Hours Required to Operate Control Devices Proposed Standards $3.12 133,000 Alternate Standards $5.00 214,000



### In Section 5.3, EPA estimates that the regulation may lead to one to two affected facilities exiting the BSCP industry. According the U.S. Census Bureau ( 2013 b), the average number of employees per facility in 2011 was 37 (8,000/218 = 37). As a result, we estimate 37 to 74 employees may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search for new jobs. 5.2.8 Conclusion Although EPA has quantified two types of employment effects in this RIA, deriving estimates of how this regulation will affect net employment is a difficult task, requiring consideration of labor demand in both the regulated and environmental protection sectors. E conomic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor demand in regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer

- reviewed econometric studies that use a structural approach, applicable to overall net effects in the regulated sectors, converge on the finding that such effects, whether positive or negativ e, have been small and have not affected employment in the national economy in a significant way. Effects on labor demand in the environmental protection sector seem likely to be positive. Finally, new evidence suggests that environmental regulation may im prove labor supply and productivity. 5.3 Impacts on Small Entities As mentioned above, EPA was particularly concerned about the proposed rule ’ s potential impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 employees and thus meet the Small Business Administration ’ s (SBA ’ s) criterion for a small business in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by

### 5

- 15 computing the ratio o f control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). 5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis As discussed in Section 2, EPA has identified 44 ultimate parent companies with fac ilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120 ) industry and the SBA (2013 ) defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small businesses. EPA assessed how the re gulatory program may influence the profitability of ultimate parent companies by comparing pollution c ontrol costs to total sales (i.e., a “ sales ” test or cost

to

- sales ratios [CSR] ). To do this, we divided an ultimate parent company ’ s (i) total annualized compliance costs by its reported revenue:
Sales Test i 

### = TTTTT AAAA AAAA C CC a C C i TTTTT R R i 

### (5.1)
As shown in Table 5

- 3, 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies had sales data available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. The table shows that 73% of all businesses and 75% of small businesses affected by the proposed standards have CSRs of under 1%. EPA estimated the rang e of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close rather than comply with the regulation. The lower and upper bounds of the range were determined as follows:

■ 

### Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.

■ 

### Upper bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to six brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.5-16 

### Table 5 - 3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

Ca pital Cost

(Million $) Annual Cost (Million $) Ultimate Parent Companies with Cost - to - Sales Ratios (CSRs) a 

### Estimated b 

### Closures Estimated Number of Facilities

Closed Less than 1% 1% to 3% 3% to 5% 5% to 10% Greater than 10% All Businesses (n=40) Proposed Standards $58 $21 73% 15% 5% 5% 3% 3

– 6% 1

– 2
Alternate Standards $94 $31 45% 25% 15% 10% 5% 5

– 14% 2

– 6 Small Businesses (n=32) Proposed Standards $11 $5 75% 16% 3% 3% 3% 3

– 5% 1

– 2
Alternate Standards $34 $11 47% 22% 16% 9% 6% 6

– 15% 2

– 5

a 

### The screening assessment was conducted for 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies with annual sales data available

. For small businesses, 32 of the 36 small

entities had annual sales data available. b 

### EPA estimated a lo wer and upper bound as follows: Lower bou nd: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.; Upper bound: All ultimate parent

companies with CSR > 10%, 50 % of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25 % of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%.

### 5

- 17 As shown in Table 5

- 3, 32 of the 36 small ultimate parent companies had sales data available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. Under the proposed standards, EPA estimated that one to two brick manufacturing facilities are at signif icant risk of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. All of the facilities at risk of closure were one facility companies. EPA has been informed that firms may have diff iculty obtaining longer

- term financing needed to buy the control equipment and make process changes needed to comply with the proposed standards. F irms may not have cash on hand or the ability to convert assets into cash in order to make these purchases; a s a result, firms would have to consider other long

- term financing options. Affected firms are less likely to be publicly traded and thus would be more likely to consider debt versus equity options. The additional liabilities can put firms at additional risk of closure if market conditions do not improve during the period when the rule is adopted. In addition, if creditors are concerned about existing or future market conditions in the brick industry, they may be less willing to enter a loan contract or may require higher rates of interest than the 7 percent interest rate used to annualize the capital costs associated with the rule. EPA estimates of the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close rather than comply with the regulation may be an underestimate because of the difficulty in obtaining financing at a 7 percent interest rate. The estimates might be an overestimate if the industry has become more robust by 2018 when the control must be in place. The closure estimate did not in clude net effects on revenue due to price increases or reductions in sales attributable to the regulation. 5.3.2 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis An IRFA illustrates how EPA considers the proposed rule ’ s small entity effects before a rule is finalized and provides information about how the objectives of the rule were achieved while minimizing significant economic impacts on small entities. We provide a summary of IRFA elements; the preamble for this rule provides additional details. 5.3.2.1 Description of the R easons Why A ctio n by the Agency is B eing Considered On May 16, 2003, under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products manufacturing and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for clay ceramics manufacturing. On March 13, 2007, the U .S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded both sets of standards. EPA is responding to the Court ’ s vacat ur and remand.

### 5

- 18 5.3.2.2 Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis of Proposed Rule The information for this IRFA elements is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule [Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291]. 5.3.2.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Small entities that EPA anticipates being affected by the standards would include the types of manufacturers listed in Section 2 of this RIA . EPA estimates that 44 U.S. companies will be affected. EPA believes that approximately 36 of these companies meet the SBA small

entity definition of having fewer than 750 employees. 5.3.2.4 Description of the Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance requirements of the Proposed Rule A discussion of the compliance requirements and cost s is presented in Section 3 of this RIA. 5.3.2.5 Identification, to the extent practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict with the Proposed Rule EPA has determined t here are no related federal rules for this source category. 5.3.2.6 Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed R ule The information for this IRFA element is contained in Section 3 of this RIA and in the preamble to the proposed rule [Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291].
EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of the BSCP proposed rule. The results of this process are discussed in Report o n EPA ’ s Planned Proposed Rule “ National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Maximum Achievable Control Technology for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing ” completed on December 6, 2013. The SBAR made several recommendations to en hance flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed rule. The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent feasible, as described below:

■ 

### The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take comment on the feas ibility of work practice standards for mercury and other metals. The discussion of work practices for mercury and other metals should clearly identify any areas where the agency believes that the data do not support work practices to allow for meaningful c omments and also discuss work practice alternatives with

### 5

- 19 sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an alternative in the final rule. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emissi on limits for mercury and for non

- mercury metals, the EPA is specifically requesting comment in the proposal on the feasibility of work practice standards for non

- mercury metals and for mercury, including data to support development of work practice standa rds for non

- mercury metals and mercury in lieu of numerical emission limits.

■ 

### The panel recommended that the EPA co

- propose both a health

- based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to propose a numer ical health

- based limit. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing a health

- based emission limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

■ 

### The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels, and other factors. Proposed rule : The EPA evaluated the data to determine if subcategories of sources were supported, including subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is proposing emission limits for mercury in two subcategories based on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has the dis cretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion for all pollutants, including total non

- mercury HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits for PM or total non

- mercury met als for all tunnel kilns. The ability to c ompl y with the equivalent lb/hr total non

- mercury HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM emissions.

■ 

### The panel recommended that t he EPA specifically request information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust dryers would affect emissions and control costs. Proposed rule : The proposed rule requests comment on whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawd ust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

■ 

### The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice standards for startup and shutdown. Proposed rule : The EPA is proposing work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns and is requ esting comment on providing those work practice standards.

■ 

### The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can establish that the data available to the agency represent the best

- performing sourc es consistent with section 112 of the CAA and relevant case law. Proposed rule : The test data for PM (the surrogate for total non

- mercury metals) showed that kilns controlled with a fabric filter

- based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better performers an d at least 12 percent of the kilns in the industry are

### 5

- 20 controlled with a fabric filter

- based APCD. Therefore, the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry ( i.e. , the best

- performing sources with a fabric filter

- based APCD). Ho wever, the EPA was unable to establish that the data available to the agency represented the best

- performing sources for mercury control. Therefore, the MACT limit for mercury is based upon the top 12 percent of sources for which we had test data. 5.4 Referenc es Arrow, K.J. , M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave, R.G. Noll, P.R. Portney, M. Russell, R. Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, and R.N. Stavins. 1996. “ Benefit

- Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation

- A Statement of Principles. ” A merican Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future. AEI Press. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Benefit Cost Analysis in Environmental.AEI.1996.pdf

. Berman, E. , and L.T. M. Bui. 2001. “ Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin. ” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 2 65

- 295. Bezdek, R.H., R. M. Wendling, and P. Diperna. 2008. “ Environmental Protection, the Economy, and Jobs: National and Regional Analyses. ” Journal of Environmental Management 86(1): 63

- 79. Brown, R.S., and L.R. Christensen. 1981. “ Estimating the Elast icities of Substitution in a Model of Partial Static equilibrium: An Application to U.S. Agriculture 1947 to 1974

. ” In Berndt, E.R., Field, B.C. (Eds.), Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution

. Ehrenberg, R.G., and R.S. Smith. 2000. “ Modern La bor Economics: Theory and Public Policy. ” Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Executive Order 13563. January 21, 2011. “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General Principles of Regulation. ” Federal Register 76(14): 3821

- 3823. Graff Zivin, J

. , and M

. Neidell. 2012. “ The Impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity. ” American Economic Review 102(7) : 3652

- 73. Graff Zivin, J

. , and M . Neidell. 2013

. “ Environment, Health, and Human Capital. ” Journal of Economic Literature 1 ( 3 ): 689

- 730. Greenstone, M. 2002. “ The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures. ” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175

- 1219. Hamermesh, D.S. 1993. “ Labor D emand. ” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Internal Revenue Service. SOI Tax Stats

- Corporation Tax Statistics. Last updated April 2014. http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI

- Ta x - Stats

- Corporation

- Tax

- Statistics

. Layard, P.R.G., and A.A. Walters. 1978. “ Microeconomic Theory. ” McGraw

- Hill, Inc.

### 5

- 21 List, J.A., D.L. Millimet, P. G. Fred riksson, and W. W. McHone. 2003. “ Effects of Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator. ” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944

- 952. Morgenstern, R.D., W. A. Pizer, and J

- S. Shih. 2002. “ Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry

- Level Perspective. ” Journal of Environmental Economi cs and Management 43(3): 412

- 436. Schmalansee, R., and R. Stavins. 2011. “ A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the Transport Rule. ” White Paper. Boston, MA: Exelon Corp. Smith, K. 2012. “ Reflections

– In Search of Crosswalks between Macroeconomics and Environmental Economics. ” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(2) : 298

- 317. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. April 2010

. “ Environmental Industries Fact Sheet, using 2008 data from Environmental Business International, Inc. ” http://web.ita.doc.gov/ete/eteinfo.nsf/068f3801d047f26e85256883006ffa54/4878b7e2fc0 8ac6d85256883006c4 52c?OpenDocument

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2011a. “ The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report

– Rev. A. ” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport_rev_a.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2011b. “ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). ” Washingto n, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf

. U.S. International Trade Commission. March 2013. Environmental and Related Se rvices. Publication No. 4389, Investigation No. 332

- 533. http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4389.pdf

. Walker, R. 2011. “ Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation. ” American Econo mic Review: Papers and Proceedings 101(2).

### 6

- 1 SECTION 6 STATUTORY AND EXECUT IVE ORDER REVIEWS 6.1 Synopsis This chapter summarizes the Statutory and Executive Order (EO) impact analyses relevant for the p roposed NESHAP for Bricks and Structural Clay Products . For each EO and Statutory requirement , we describe both the requirements and the way in which our analysis addresses these requirements. 6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation an d Regulatory Review Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “ significant regulatory action. ” The proposed rule qualifies as a “ significant regulatory action ” as defined by the Executive Order because it may “ raise novel legal or pol icy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President ’ s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. ” Thus, EPA has conducted this Regulatory Impact Analysis to examine the costs, benefits, and estimated impacts of the proposed rule. E PA ’ s study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur total annualized costs of $21 million under the proposed rule, including costs of emissions controls, testing, and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities that ha ve testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs of the alternate approach are estimated to be $31 million. EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BASCP facilities. EPA estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under the alternate approach, EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. The EPA also conducted an assessme nt of the benefits of the proposed rule , as described in Section VII above. These estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM 2.5 

### reduced by this rule. Data, re source, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAPs each year through the alternate standards , as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO 2 

### , this rule would reduce several non

- mercury HAP metal s emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each

### 6

- 2 year. The EPA estimate the total monetized co

- benefits to be $52 million to $120 million at a 3% discount rate and $47 million to $110 million at a 7% discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the proposed standards

. Based on the EPA ’ s examination of costs and benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed rule will exceed the costs. 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the BSCP proposed rule has been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandat ory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the pr oposed rule includes paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5

- year repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction. There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to the BSCP proposed rule. For these 67 facilities, the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the BSCP standards (averaged o ver the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor hours per year, at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during t his period. The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $983/yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of

### 6

- 3 the standards) is estimated to be 103 hours per year, at a total la bor cost of $5,329 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because BSCP facilities are not required to come into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e. g., performance tests, inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report, records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation. For the BSCP proposed rule, we estimate an average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 labor hours per year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating and maintenance costs of $350,075/yr over this period, for a total annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) An agency may not conduc t or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 6.4 Regulatory Flexibility A ct The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agenc y certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of th e proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration ’ s (SBA ’ s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town , school district , or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not

- for

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the propo sed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry, and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in this industr y as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36

### 6

- 4 parent companies that are small businesses; of these, 32 have sales data. The EPA first conducted a screening assessment by computing the ratio of estima ted compliance costs to company sales (cost

- to

- sales ratio or CSR) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant ris k of closure. Under the alternate standards, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the BSCP proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is described in Section 5, above, and is summarized below. The IRFA describes the reason why the proposed rule is being considered and desc ribes the objectives and legal basis of the proposed rule. The IRFA describes EPA ’ s examination of small entity effects prior to proposing a regulatory option and provides information about steps taken to minimize significant impacts on small entities whil e achieving the objectives of the rule. As described above, EPA is developing these standards in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ’ s vacatur and remand of a BSCP NESHAP promulgated in 2003. The objectives of this pr oposed rule are stated in the Preambl e to the Proposed Rule . As described in Sections 2 and 5, EPA ’ s examination of data concerning the 44 owner companies owning affected BSCP facilities revealed that 36 of them meet the SBA small

- entity definition of havi ng fewer than 750 employees. The EPA summarized the regulatory requirements and cost sof the propose drule in Section 3 of this RIA, including the proposed standards and alternate standards. EPA ’ s analysis has determined that there are no related federal rules for this source category. Section 5 of this RIA describes the RFA/SBREFA analysis, the results of which are summarized above. As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the BSCP proposed rule ’ s requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick manufacturing participate d. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the materials that the SERs received for the pre - Panel outreach, the SERs were provided with background information to help them prepare for the telec onference and prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small

- entity

### 6

- 5 comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is inc luded in the docket for the BSCP proposed rule. (Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0291) The SBAR Panel made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed rule. In response to each recommendation, EPA has devel oped the rule to accept the recommendation to the extent possible. Specific procedures incorporated into the proposed rule in response to the panel ’ s recommendations are presented in Section 5. 6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local , and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year . EPA estimates that the nationwide total annual cost of the proposed rule, including control, emissions testing, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs, will be $21 million. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local , or tribal governments. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments . I t contains no requirements that apply to such govern ments nor does it impose obligations on them. 6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in E O 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned and operated by state governments, and, nothing in the proposed rule wil l supersede state regulations. Thus, E O 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA ’ s policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, 6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specifi ed in EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or no the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in EO 13175. The action imposes requirements on owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments.

### 6

- 6 6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5

- 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions in emiss ions of HF, HCl, Cl 2 

### , dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals, which will provide some increased protection of health for people of all ages including children. 6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not a “ significant energy action ” as defined in E O 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule will no t adversely directly affect productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector. 6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA ) Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104

- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards . The EPA proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19

- 10

- 1981, Part 10, “Flu e and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is acceptable as an al ternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures. ASTM D6735

- 01 (Reapproved 2009), “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides f rom Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources

— Impinger Method ,” is acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.

### 6

- 7 ASTM D6784

- 02 (Reapproved 2008), “ Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle

- Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal

- Fired St ationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) ,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).
ASTM D6348

- 03 (Reapproved 2010), “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy ,” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) t he test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348

- 03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) i n ASTM D6348

- 03 An nex A 5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A 5

. 5 ). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 130 perce nt. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte ( i.e. , the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). Th e %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R. 6.11 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations E O 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs feder al agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their prog rams, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority , low

- inco me , or indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority , lo w - income , or indigenous population
. This proposed rule establishes national standards that will result in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, CL 2 

### , dioxins/furans, and Hg and other metals to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus, the proposed rule is projected to have positive, not adverse , impacts on human health and the environment.

### 7

- 1 SECTION 7 COMPARISON OF BENEFI TS AND COSTS 7.1 Introduction The EPA compared the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 (Section 4) with the estimated annualized social costs (Section 5) and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely higher since EPA was not able to monetize other environmental benefits from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAPs each year and ecosystem effects and visibility impairment associated with PM emissions. 7.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed standards to be $52 million to $120 m illion (Table 7

- 1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $47 million to $110 million. The annualized costs are $21 million at a 7% interes t rate. The net benefits are $31 million to $99 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $26 million to $89 billion at a 7% discount rate. 7.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the proposed standards to be $78 million to $180 mil lion (Table 7

- 1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $70 million to $160 million. The annualized costs are $31 million at a 7% interest rate. The net benefits are $47 million to $149 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $39 million to $129 billion at a 7% discount rate.

### 7

- 2 Table 7 - 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Socia l Costs, and Net Benefits (million 2011$)
Total (3% Discount Rate) Total (7% Di scount Rate) Proposed Standards Total Monetized Benefits $52 to $120 $47 to $110 Total Social Costs a 

### $21 Net Benefits $31 to $99 $26 to $89 Alternate Standards Total Monetized Benefits $78 to $18 0 $70 to $16 0 Total Social Costs a 

### $31 Net Benefits $47 to $14 9 $39 to $129

a 

### The methodology uses the estimate social costs from the baseline year of economic model. As a result, the same

value of social costs is used for both discount rates.

### A

- 1 APPENDIX A ECONOMIC MODEL A.1 Baseline Data for Economic Model Table A - 1 . Affected Production Statistics by Census Region

Census Region 1,000 S.B.E Shipped in 2010 Estimated Affected Production Share within Region a 

### East North Central 285,508 81% East South Central 388,685 100% Mid

- Atlantic 213,583 69% Mountain 114,154 5 0 % New England 37,034 0% Pacific 74,563 85% South Atlantic 1,307,601 92% West North Central 183,247 100% West South Central 891,232 100% United States 3,495,657 90%

a 

### To approximate the affected shares, EPA estimated affected production from kiln capacity and operating hours of

major sources. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations. 

### Table A - 2 . Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E. Expressed in 2010 dollars $ per 1,000 S.B.E. Expressed in 2011 dollars New England $379 $387 Middle Atlantic $324 $331 East North Central $297 $302 West North Central $272 $277 South Atlantic $227 $232 East South Central $183 $186 West South Central $225 $229 Mountain $355 $362 Pacific $541 $551 United States $248 $253 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Prices adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product

(GDP).

### A

- 2 A.2 Model Equations Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high relative to value. For this reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 ). 61 

### Approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS is less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the av erage price of brick products shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for brick. As a result, we use a perfectly competitive partial equilibrium model with nine regional br ick markets (defined by census region). The market demand (D) in region (r) with regulation is : Q DD

′ 

### = Q DD 

### × � 1 + � P ′



### − 1 � × η � (A.1 )
The affected market supply (SA) in region (r) with regulation is : Q S

′ 

### = Q S 

### × � 1 + � � P ′

− �



### − 1 � × ε � (A.2 )
The unaffected market supply (SU) in region (r) with regulation is : Q SS

′ 

### = Q SS 

### × � 1 + � P ′



### − 1 � × ε � (A.3 )
At the new with

- regulation market

- clearing price, quantities in A.1, A.2, and A.3 satisfy the following market equilibrium condition for each region (r) : Q DD

′ 

### = Q S ′ 

### + Q SS ′ 

### (A.3 ) As reported in Section 2, a single parent company accounts for a majority of estimated
census region production. As a result, the price

- taking model of firm decisions may not describe business decisio ns as well as other economic models of pricing behavior (i.e., oligopoly)

. If

61 

### The data include other product s such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.

### A

- 3 market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of the proposed rule. A.3 Model Parameters A.3.1 Demand All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer brick and structural clay products when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response. 62 

### Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If cons umers can easily switch from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the co nsumption decision (months versus years). Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities for brick and structural clay products. However, economy

- wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral industry demand el asticity is approximately −0. 8. As are result, a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decline in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008 ). Because the market definition for the product is broad, the price response for brick and structural clay products is likely more elastic than this value

. A.3.2 Supply All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply mea sures how much the quantity of bricks supplied responds to changes in the brick price. 63 

### If manufacturers have a significant amount of flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks is elastic. In contrast , if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.
A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford ( 2002) develop ed an equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed

62 

### The measure is computed as the percentage chang e in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in price. 63 

### The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.

### A

- 4 factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period 64 

### and the other input that varies with production

. Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × 

## share ue factor val fixed share ue factor val fixed 1

− (A.4)
To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 5 0% to app roximately match the nonlabor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity is 1 (a Cobb

- Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares . If we assume the elasticity of substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is Supply Elasticity = 1 × 5

. 0 5

. 0 1

− 

### = 1 (A.5) Using these values for the fixed factor ’ s value share and elasticity of substitution, the supply elasticity is approximately one . This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick manufacturers would plan to sell 1 % more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. A.4 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer Surplus In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in consumer and producer surplus. These values can be approximated using the market supply and demand model (Figure A

- 1).

64 

### The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors th at vary with production could include materials or labor.

### A

- 5 Figure A - 1. Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer Surplus Change in consumer surplus =

– [fghd + dhc] Change in producer surplus = [fghd

– ae hb]

– bdc Change in total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus =

– [aehb + dhc + bdc] 

### T he change in consumer surplus is measured as follows :
∆

CS = – [ ∆ Q 1 

### × ∆ p ] + [ 0.5 × ∆ Q × ∆ p ]

. (A.6 )
H igher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses. For affected supply, the change in producer surplus is measured as follows :
∆

PS = [ Q 1 

### × ∆ p ]

– [ Q 1 

### × unit cost increase]

– [ 0.5 × ∆ Q × ( ∆ p

– unit cost increase ) ]

. (A.7 ) Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus

. The losses are offset to some degree because market prices tend to rise. In contrast, for unaffected supply, the change in producer surplus is :
∆ PS = [ Q 0 

### × ∆ p ] + [ 0.5 × ∆ Q × ∆ p ]

. (A.8 ) Higher prices increase producer surplus for unaffected producers in the U.S. and other countries. Q 1 Q 0 P 1
P 0 h

c

a $

Output e d S 1 : With Regulation

S 0 : Without Regulation Price Increase } Unit Cost Increase 

# } g

f b